[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - May 2010

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 5/27/2010 11:54 AM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 1:33 PM, Bill Darte<BillD at cait.wustl.edu>  wrote:
>> You failed to include the portion of my comment that expressed the concern
>> for community consensus...which is a critical part of any policy and policy
>> evaluation, seems to me.
>
> Proposal 112 was widely discussed both on PPML and by the somewhat
> different crowd that shows up at the meeting and we expressed a
> consensus that it should be abandoned?
>
> The policy process participants who don't camp PPML even know that
> proposal 112 existed?
>
> Fostering public participation means that you do everything within
> reason to help any member of the public who makes the effort to step
> up move their proposal forward in the process, even when it's obvious
> at the outset that it will ultimately fail. It's not about supporting
> the proposal, it's about supporting the author. Supporting proposal
> authors encourages and includes them in the process, and helps train
> them to do better with their next attempt. If you're not spending the
> majority of your time on the AC engaged in exactly that activity then
> you're doing something wrong. And in the unlikely event that bad
> policy sneaks past wide consensus there are remaining stops in the
> process where the AC can pass any needed judgment.
>
> The sitting AC has some smart and diligent people, but it has done a
> truly shameful job when it comes to fostering public participation.
>

While I have to disagree with some of the thrust of Bill's comments
here I will say that one thing I do agree is that there seems to be a 
disconnect between policy consensus on the mailing list and at the meetings.

As I see the ARIN meetings, they should be more of a "rubber stamp"
and less of a "discussion" since frankly the proposals SHOULD have
been extensively discussed and hashed out ON THE MAILING LIST BEFORE
THE MEETING TAKES PLACE.

There is NO comparison to the hours of time that are available to
compose an argument or rebuttal on the ML that is logical and well
thought out, vs the few moments allowed for a "sound bite" at the
policy meeting.  The former makes for MUCH BETTER policy IMHO than
the latter.

However as I see it, some of the people at the policy meetings
seem to feel it unnecessary to participate on the ML in any fashion.
That is probably the reason for Bill's "somewhat different crowd that 
shows up at the meeting" observation, an observation I find troubling.

Perhaps it might be useful for ARIN to make a rule at the next
public policy meeting that comments on any policy will be
prioritized, and commentators who have previously posted to the
mailing list will be allowed to go first at the mics.

Ted