[arin-ppml] Proposed Petition Process for New PDP -- Comments Due 9May
dlw+arin at tellme.com
Fri May 9 12:18:39 EDT 2008
I'd support Leo's proposed modification. I agree that having an
initial step that looks like staff approval, even if that's not the
actual intent, is going to be a major perception problem. Some
modification is probably necessary to fix that perception gap, but
verifying that staff understands the proposal is, as Leo notes, an
I'm otherwise generally in favor of the proposal as written. It may
need some tweaking down the road, but I don't think we'll really know
that until we try to use this process.
Question for Scott and the board: is there yet any specific ideas on
when and how this process will be adopted? I'd hate to see different
proceses used for different proposals, based on the timing of the
initial proposal, as that seems likely to cause a lot of confusion. On
the other hand, changing the criteria for acceptance for a proposal
that's already in process seems unfair. As near as I can tell, the
process used to generate policy is entirely owned by the board, so
I'm hoping that the smart people we elected have some thoughts on this
On Fri, May 09, 2008 at 10:56:03AM -0400, Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Fri, May 09, 2008 at 08:59:14AM -0400, Alexander, Daniel wrote:
> > I think this is overly complicated, and the petition process
> > should not be involved in this step. This is because the petition
> > process should not be required for an originator to get a proposal
> > presented to the AC, that they elected to represent the community.
> > While the experience of ARIN staff is extremely valuable, it is
> > contradictory to the bottom up process that staff have the ability
> > to deny a community proposal, even if the petition process is
> > available. It just paints an awkward picture.
> My understand of the reason for this step was to make sure staff
> understood the proposal. They would make no evaluation of the merit
> of the proposal, simply if they understood the proposal as written.
> The idea being of course, if staff doesn't understand the proposal
> it makes little sense for everyone else to spend time debating it
> since one of two outcomes is likely, it will be rewritten so staff
> can understand it, or it would be passed and staff would have no
> idea how to implement it as they don't understand it.
> That said, if the alternative you propose is that the staff performs
> their review (15 day window) and then simply sends the proposal to
> the AC with "we understand it" or "we don't understand it" and the
> AC uses that as one of the inputs to the decision to accept or
> reject the proposal then I could support that as well. The most likely
> outcome to me though is that it results in a delay to the authors,
> rather than the staff sending back e-mail in the 15 day window saying
> "we don't understand" it will have to wait for the next AC meeting for
> the AC to say "we reject the proposal because the staff can't understand
> it". Not a huge worry on my part, but something to point out.
> Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
> PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
> Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML