[arin-ppml] Proposed Revision to the ARIN Policy Development Process

[Jason Schiller]

On Fri, 9 May 2008, Sam Weiler wrote:

> Date: Fri, 09 May 2008 11:40:56 -0400 (EDT)
> From: Sam Weiler <weiler at tislabs.com>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposed Revision to the ARIN Policy Development
>     Process
> 
> [resending; sorry for any duplicates]
> 
> In general, I support these proposed changes -- I think they'll result 
> in better policy proposals, which helps us all.  Thanks to the board 
> for proposing them.
> 
> But the specifics need some work.
> 
> First, this proposal doesn't do enough to 1) make the process more 
> responsive and 2) make the PPML more relevant (and, by implication, 
> the physical public policy meetings less dominant in the policy 
> process).  As a first step, I suggest allowing the AC (or a 
> petitioner) discretion to advance a policy without discussion at a 
> meeting.  I look forward to other suggestions the community may have 
> towards these ends, also.
> 
In general, support the idea of empowering the AC to do policy
development.  I expect that this will lead to a smaller number of better
written proposals, a reduction of similar but conflicting policies, and a
reduction of policies that are not technically sound, or have a very
narrow benefit.

I also believe doing staff and legal assessments earlier is a positive
change.  Having adequate discussion of the proposed policy and being able
to refine and freeze the text prior to the Public Policy Meeting is a
noble goal, but I do not believe the current discussion (unless the
process is somehow changed) on the PPML list is adequate to accomplish
this as evidence by the fact that many recent policy proposals resulted in
quibbling about text.  

My concerns are similar to Sam's wrt making the process more responsive,
and making the ARIN community more relevant.

In the Public Policy Meeting I expressed my concerns about the likelihood
that the AC would make attempts to work with reasonable authors at each
stage of the process. This would encourage the AC and the originator to
find common ground, and reduce the likelihood of policy proposals going
through the petition process.  As a result, I would feel more comfortable
with a higher bar for the petition process, and even if the bar is not
raised, there would still likely be a reduction of multiple similar
policies being presented before the community.

Wrt the petition process I think the community should be able to petition
at each step where the AC might decide to act contrary to the
community or orignator.  How difficult the petition process should be
should be indirectly proportional to how likely the AC is to work with the
originator or community in general.

It was my impression that the AC intends to make a reasonable effort to
work with the originator.  It was also my impression that the intention of
the process was for the AC to attempt to work with the originator.  

Unfortunately the text only references the AC working with the originator
during the clarity and understanding phase (1b.).  I would like the AC to
make an attempt to work with reasonable originators  at each of the
steps: draft policy rewrite/merge/abandon/etc (2a), draft policy selection
(2b), presentation at the Policy Meeting (4), Consensus
rewrite/merge/abandon send to last call/etc (5a).  

For example, if the AC believes the originator can do a better
presentation of the proposed policy is that acceptable?  Will the AC
collaborate with the originator to get input for the presentation at the
Public Policy Meeting?  Will the AC make the final presentation to the
Public Policy Meeting available to originator prior to the meeting to
solicit feed back? 

For example will the AC attempt consult the originator on rewrites to see
if they can reasonably reach some text that is mutually acceptable to the
originator and the AC?

Some other clarification is also requested:
If a policy is a draft policy (2b) but does not get selected, does it
remain a draft policy?  What happens at the maximum of 30 days?  Does the
draft policy then expire?  Or  does the AC  simply have to decide if they
are or are not going to select it in a 30 day window?  If the latter is
true, can that later select a draft policy after 30 days?  

In last call (5b) the AC selects draft policies that have support in both
the community and the AC.  Is there any way for the community to gain
insight as to if a particular draft policy does or does not have consensus
within the AC?  Is there any ability for the community to understand the
AC reservations, and attempt to address them in order to win support?

In last call review (5c) what happens if the draft policy is placed back
on the docket?  Does it proceed directly to step 2a?

Thanks,

___Jason