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

[John Springer]

This may be starting to be more suitable for arin-discuss, but I'll leave 
it here for now. For the record, I support posting to PPML. For Bill D, I 
oppose defining relative merit between Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) 
writing and Public Policy Meeting (PPM) speech or writing. Further 
comments inline.

> 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?

A critical part but perhaps not always the definitive part? Just guessing.

>> 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 above paragraph gives me mixed feelings. I am very much for 
supporting, encouraging, including, helping and training, but what is 
"exactly that activity" that is evidence of wrongdoing? Nothing more, 
nothing less? Seems harsh. Seems incorrect, actually.

>> 
>> The sitting AC has some smart and diligent people, but it has done a
>> truly shameful job when it comes to fostering public participation.
>>

True and I don't think so.

Meanwhile on Thu, 27 May 2010, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>
> 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.

Hmmmm.  I'll stipulate a difference but I feel that it is desireable. How 
could it not be? A clandestine cabal?

> 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.

Bah. Disagree. Do not want. I oppose this view of relative merit between 
PPML verbiage and PPM verbiage. I propose equal merit for PPML and PPM 
statements.

> 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.

I dispute this. It is often useful to me to devote relatively focused,
uninterrupted periods for evaluation, e.g. meetings. Sometimes I rise up. 
Sometimes I sit and yak. Mostly I like to deliberate long and speak (or 
write) little. I'd rather speak. I find that the act of standing at a 
microphone concentrates the attention marvelously. I reject the notion of 
characterizing venue in the way proposed in the paragraph above or 
disregarding legitimate input thereby. Duh.

> 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.

Sigh. I'll try to do better, but this view seems a bit... what, 
condescending, judgmental, parental. Honestly.

> That is probably the reason for Bill's "somewhat different crowd that shows 
> up at the meeting" observation, an observation I find troubling.

I don't get anything about this. Is there some kind of opprobrium attached 
to attending meetings? Wouldn't more people at meetings be a good thing? 
This is some faint praise indeed.

> 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.

Feh. Disagree. Do not support. At the risk of repeating myself, please do 
not attempt to subordinate any speech to any other speech based on the 
location of expression. Seriously, go first?

Besides, there's transcripts. :)

John Springer

> Ted
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>
>