[arin-ppml] Possible amendment to proposal 116 (small experts panel)

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 5:44 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> Would you consider the straw man to follow the three principles of open,
> transparent, and bottom-up policy development?

Hi John,

That was my target. If I missed, point and shout.



On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:03 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Jul 27, 2010, at 8:27 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> 3 individuals on the panel (keep it small and nimble):
>> 1 from academia selected by the board (specifically not affiliated
>> with an IR or any ARIN members)
>
> Panel member 3 will be distinctly difficult to find. It is hard to find someone
> in academia not affiliated with an ARIN member as most academic
> institutions are ARIN members.

That's why I picked him. He's a counterbalance -- everything ARIN's
business as usual is not.

> Also, I question a panel which specifically includes a representative
> from academia while eschewing the idea of any representatives from
> industry.

When I first wrote this I had five members, including one from
industry (defined as an ARIN member) and one at-large. But I think 5
is too many people. Large groups find it difficult to quickly make
hard choices. So I whittled it down to 3 and industry was at least
partially represented by the selection of an AC member, whose presence
I considered more important.

> Should the request have to identify the acceptable use in their submitted
> plan?

Makes sense to me.

> I would argue that withdrawl should apply to requests not yet acknowledged
> by the ARIN ticketing system at the time the withdrawl proposal is ratified
> by the panel. Otherwise you have unfair issues of ex post facto.

I can see advantages and disadvantages either way. If the withdrawal
backdates to when the withdrawal proposal is posted to PPML then
there's a chance to stop abuse in progress.


>> Vote of no confidence - petition of 10 people on the PPML compels the
>> AC to hold a confidence vote. If the majority of the AC votes no
> This seems particularly vulnerable to a DOS attack.

Because the AC might be repeatedly required to vote that they still
have confidence in the panel?


On Tue, Jul 27, 2010 at 7:21 PM, James Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
> What criteria would they be required to use in determining if something
> is an eligible transition technology, and  how do we determine how much
> space  is warranted to be needed to use the technology, AND  what
> organization(s) can apply..... as in,  the requirements/justifications
> required to use a transition technology  ?

Hi James,

That's the point of picking a panel of experts: they're experts. Given
broad goals and guidelines (mostly already in 4.10) they're capable of
making these decisions based on their expertise.


> So  why not just let the   BoT  discuss any PPML discussion for
> proposed uses,   appoint  some member of the AC or ARIN staff    to
> propose when an old acceptable use should be removed,   and  to decide
>  if a proposal has enough public input to be considered?

Because the BoT and AC already have enough on their plates and given
the likely controversial nature of the panel's proposed work, it would
be healthy if the blame didn't spill over too much.


> I would say,  public involvement removes the need for the 'panel'  to
> be  a 'panel of experts',  since there are experts from the public who
> would comment on the discussion.

The process of building public consensus is necessarily slow. When
there aren't any more IPv4 addresses except what's in this pool, slow
to react is likely to be damaging to the very activities 4.10 is
intended to assist.


> Why allow private discussion,   what is the reason for allowing any
> information at all
> about how the 'list'  or other policy  was developed,  to be hidden
> from the public?

In a public discussion, you speak to the public as much as you speak
to the person you're replying to. I'm doing it now. In a
consensus-building process, that's a good thing. If you're trying to
quickly get to the bottom of a matter and make a decision, it's not so
good. You need to be able to open your mouth and not be held
accountable for every indelicate turn of phrase.

As I suggested for the AC, though, I do think it would be valuable for
anyone voting "no" to write a couple paragraphs explaining to the
public why.

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