[arin-ppml] RIPE/ITU

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 6, 2010, at 10:06 AM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> ________________________________________
> From: David Farmer [farmer at umn.edu]
> 
>> I've been thinking about this for a couple days, I'm not necessarily
>> sure big changes are required in government or in the way we do things
>> either.  It may really only take some subtle changes, more in the way we
>> each think about things, we need to help each other understand there is
>> a roles for both parties to play here.  Then maybe some tweaks in our
>> process could help too.
> 
> I believe it will take big, long-term cultural changes, but on the whole your attitude and suggestions are constructive. 
> 
>> I'll point out that our PDP is not unlike a notice-and-comment
>> rulemaking process that is common in many governments.  But, our PDP has
>> been turbo charged with Internet technologies like email and remote
>> meeting participation over chat and video streaming, etc...  Rather than
>> only using 19th century technologies like face-to-face meetings and
>> letters.
> 
> first, don't underestimate the degree to which RIRs, IETF and ICANN rely on f2f meetings using "19th century" technologies like jet planes and computerized travel reservation intermediaries. Of course these meetings build on an underlying infrastructure of online discussion, texts and coordination, but speaking from experience, if you don't go to an ICANN meeting you don't really know what's going on and won't be that influential, and I suspect the RIRs are similar (will go to my first ARIN meeting in toronto; have been to a RIPE). 

Nope.  I've done a couple of ARIN meetings by remote in my history, and
that was before the tools were as good as they are today.  Is it easier
to participate in the room?  Yes.  Do you have more influence than if you
participate on the mailing list? Nope.

> second, you're right about notice and comment, but to understand and intervene in those processes via N&C one must be quite specialized. anyway I think your idea about allowing written submissions is great, that would help some civil society organizations not just govts, but it wouldn't fundamentally alter the dynamics, because whoever comments still would have to be a highly specialized follower of the process with sufficient technical expertise to understand what it means, e.g., to understand the policy implications of changing the way SWIP data is collected and distributed. 
> 
Even the government is now accepting written submissions via web pages
in most public comment, so, I don't see why we wouldn't be able to make that
work for their submissions as well.
> 

Owen