[arin-ppml] Encouraging public participation in the PDP

[William Herrin]

Bill,

Let me clarify: I think ARIN's informative outreach programs are
satisfactory. The people you want to reach are by and large receiving
your information. In fact, I think your information is reaching more
or less everyone who is interested.

It's the participatory outreach that is falling flat with the AC's
collective behavior as the proximate cause. You're doing a poor job of
drawing people into the process and you're unnecessarily frustrating,
even driving away the ones who are already here.

That's why my comments speak to enabling and encouraging participation
by the folks you've already reached but don't speak to reaching wider
audiences. I'm interested in fixing the part that's actually broken.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:48 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> William, (as different from me)
>
> Your earlier emails talked about broader participation.  I thought you meant
> more than those that currently review policy proposal.
> Everything below talks to the process of evaluating, not a broader group of
> eyes.
>
> bd
>
>
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
>



-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004