[arin-ppml] Global policy development process [was: Re: NRPM2010.1 ? New Policies Implemented]

[Martin Hannigan]

On Jan 15, 2010, at 11:56 AM, Leo Bicknell wrote:

> In a message written on Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 08:43:13AM -0800, Lee  
> Howard wrote:
> > What do you think the process for global policy development SHOULD  
> be?
>
> I have said before:
>
> ARIN should have a process similar to, but separate from the PDP
> for "speaking".  That is, we should be able to pass a resolution
> like:
>
>    "ARIN requests IANA to assign ASN's according to the following
>     criteria....."
>
> It makes no sense for such a thing to be put in our PDP, as there
> is nothing for ARIN to do.  It makes no sense to use the PDP process,
> because each step (e.g. staff impact) is predicated on ARIN staff
> doing something.  It also makes no sense to list these things in
> the PDP.  For instance, we pass it and the other 4 RIR's do not,
> it does not become IANA policy, but it is stuck in our PDP until
> we go remove it.  So we publish it on the web as if it is policy,
> confusing everyone.
>
> Once all 5 RIR's make a formal request like the example above, IANA
> could say:
>
>    "All 5 RIR's have requested ASN's be assigned by the following
>     critera...."
>
>    "As a result, the criteria above has been added to IANA policy
>     ABC.123, and will be implemented by IANA on Jan 1 ABCD."
>
> So it's pretty much exactly the same structure, but we stop calling
> a request to IANA an ARIN policy, because, well, it isn't, and it
> confuses everyone.
>

Might even be simpler. Initially, I always felt that the goal of  
"global policy" was not to regulate RIR's globally or for one RIR to  
try and impose it's wishes upon others, but to regulate ICANN and the  
actions that it performs for the addressing community. If you examine  
previous policies, they typically directed ICANN to perform a service  
in a specific way that had reached consensus amongst RIR's. This  
policy is an attempt to regulate the action of individual RIR's. I'm  
not surprised that the policy does not work for this.

>
> I can think of no more damning condemnation of the current process
> than the fact that Mr Hannigan is asking the question, someone who
> is currently on the ICANN ASO AC.  If someone who is the next step
> in the process can't understand what in the heck we're doing then
> there's no way for the average Joe to keep track.
>


Others are welcome to [try and] come to different conclusions.

	http://aso.icann.org/documents/memorandum-of-understanding/


Best,

-M<





http://aso.icann.org/documents/memorandum-of-understanding/