[arin-ppml] Encouraging public participation in the PDP

[William Herrin]

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 7:07 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> I appreciate the concern: thanks for bringing it up.
>
> The Board is in the process of modifying (and hopefully improving) the PDP.
> What changes would you (or anyone else) recommend to make the process more
> open?

Hi Scott,

Honestly? Bring back the IRPEP. As it impacts public participation,
the PDP is architecturally unsound at its core. It will take a heroic
effort by the AC members not to progressively exclude the public. The
BoT should bring the IRPEP back and then attempt some minimalist
changes to mitigate the problems we all recall. Perhaps tweak the
IRPEP's final steps to be more like the PDP.


On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 8:58 AM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> We ALL know of this problem.  There are extensive outreach efforts
> underway in which ARIN staff and AC representatives attend large
> conferences of stakeholders and where the participation is NOT passive,
> but rather active in outreach efforts...i.e. visiting other booths
> rather that waiting for passers-by.  ARIN Membership has done a
> wonderful job at creating materials which are available on the website
> and are distributed at every occasion.
>
> What efforts do you recommend to increase stakeholder awareness and
> participation?  Come with solutions along with your criticism.  No-one
> lacks interest in the solution to this problem. There is no lack of
> energy to do so.  Perhaps there is a lack of vision.....provide it!

Bill,

Conceptually the answer seems obvious enough: when all the informative
efforts finally convince someone to step up and attempt to
participate, DON'T SHUT THEM DOWN.

As a member of the AC, some specific things you can personally do
towards that end include:

1. Remove evaluation of a policy's worth from the decision to accept a
proposal as a draft policy. Focus on whether the proposal describes
"actionable" policy, not whether the action is a good one. Focus on
helping the author revise it into actionable policy if it isn't
already and then accept it as a draft policy. After accepting it as a
draft, try to help the author revise it into the closest thing to
passable policy possible while still preserving the proposal's intent.

Let the wide community evaluate the proposal's worth. The AC can add
it's two cents when and if the draft garners the consensus to move to
last call.

Members of the AC can add their two cents any time. But hold the group
recommendation until after the whole community has spoken.


2. Let the proposal's author (or authors if proposals get merged)
guide the AC's changes, at least to the extent of not making changes
where the author advises that, "No, that goes against what the
proposal is trying to accomplish." The PDP gives the AC the authority
to revise draft policy. It doesn't tell you how you have to use that
authority. You have the leeway to use it in a way that includes the
author instead of excluding him.

Of course, you actually have to accept the proposal as a draft policy
first. This idea of "we reject you but please try again" is
exclusionary BS and there's no amount of informative outreach that's
going to make it anything other than BS. If you want to "soften" a
rejection, don't issue it in the first place.

One of the architects of Ultima Online famously said, "We want to
minimize the down side of being dead." What a stupid idea! You only
need to minimize the down side of being dead if you've unbalanced the
game against the players.


3. Delay proposing policy. Post a PPML message saying, "We're thinking
about policy which does X. What do y'all think? Would anyone like to
take a stab at policy text?" and then wait until any discussion dies
out without anyone else proposing a policy before an AC member does.

I hate the idea of #3. In the IRPEP model it wasn't necessary and
surely AC members are well qualified to write good policy proposals.
But in the PDP's structure, when an AC member jumps on top of a new
policy idea, it tends to drive the public out of the formative process
right away, reducing them to mere commenters on the AC's policy
instead of partners in the policy's creation.

ICANN has public comment. Even the FCC has public comment on its
rulemaking. Do those organizations have any meaningful public
participation in their rulemaking? Hell no. Do you really want ARIN to
become the IP address version of the FCC?


Fundamentally, though, this is a process problem. The PDP enables and
encourages a decision making process that solicits public comment but
doesn't really solicit public participation, especially for the AC
members whose natural tendency is to work behind the scenes. Unlike
the IRPEP, which had some annoying surface problems, I think the PDP
is broken at the core.

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