[arin-ppml] Petition Underway - Policy Proposal 95: Customer Confidentiality - Time Sensitive

[William Herrin]

On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 7:50 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> William Herrin wrote:
>> Do you realize that only five of the fifteen of you have participated
>> in the PUBLIC policy mailing list this month?
>
> I'll just point out not everyone participates in the same way, and this is a
> good thing, there are other roles to play than opinionated guy who shoots
> his mouth off a lot, that I some time play.  We do need quite contemplative
> thinkers too.  I believe the AC is a well rounded group and there are many
> different roles to be played on the AC.  I don't think it would serve the
> community well if we all thought and acted the same.  I can tell you that
> all of the people on your list above have contributed in their own ways,
> even if it wasn't to post to PPML.

David,

I'm not trying to single out anyone, but frankly I'm frustrated by the
AC's collective behavior this past year and I doubt I'm the only one.
I'd be far more sympathetic if all the quiet work outside the public
eye resulted more and better advice for proposal authors from among
the general public, and less suppression of proposals not written by
members of the AC itself.

Take an instructive look at the proposals abandoned prior to formal
discussion over the past 18 months:

First, the ones authored by the members of the AC:

96. Abandoned because it was process rather than policy. Referred to
the ARIN President for further action.
91. Abandoned without comment, presumably because it was principally a
challenge to a Board of Trustees action. I note that it was abandoned
despite significant support for the proposal among the community.
87. Abandoned after ARIN staff procedures were altered to accomplish
the same result.
85: Abandoned in favor of proposal 91 by the same AC member.

Now look at the difference with the ones authored by the general public:

104, 103: Abandoned because "the AC could not support this proposal in
its current form"
100: Abandoned without comment as the AC advanced a similar proposal
written by one of its members.
98: Abandoned because "the proposal is overly complicated."
95: Abandoned because it resembles a proposal defeated half a decade ago.
92: Abandoned because "The AC [...] does not believe that the problem
addressed is immediate nor of sufficient scope"
88: Abandoned without comment.
86: Abandoned on the grounds that modifications to the policy
development process can not be made through the policy development
process.
83: Abandoned "seeing little support and a large amount of opposition on PPML."


Have I painted a clear enough picture or do I need to spell it out?
The insiders' right to advance a proposal is almost undisputed while
the evaluation of bottom-up policy has progressed from "seeing little
[public] support" to "the AC could not support."

The BoT has thrown you a nasty conflict of interest by having you sit
in judgment on your own proposals as well as those from the general
public . Quite frankly you are, as a group, handling it poorly.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004