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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jul 27, 2010, at 11:39 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> 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.
> 
That may well be a good theory, but, my point is that if you can't find a
qualified person to fill the slot, you have a rather dysfunctional panel.

>> 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.
> 
An interesting statement given that at least three AC members are
from academia, not industry. Some quick math says that's at least
20% of the AC.

>> 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.
> 
Yes, but, if the "abuse" is legitimately within the policy prior to the change,
then, it is not abuse by the good faith definition of the community and the
change is literally the type of change intended to be prohibited by the
ex post facto provisions of the constitution. While I realize that the US
constitution is not particularly related to ARIN policy, perhaps due to my
American upbringing, I do feel that making ex post facto changes to
policies and applying them retroactively is unfair and just plain wrong.

> 
>>> 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?
> 
Because the AC could, at least in theory repeatedly vote no confidence.
Because it's a very low threshold of disgruntled community members to
bring about a no-confidence vote for a panel which as you point out
is likely to make itself unpopular if it is living up to its duties.


Owen