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

[James Hess]

On Fri, May 28, 2010 at 9:07 AM, Milton L Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>> On Thu, May 27, 2010 at 3:27 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net>
>> wrote:  >> > As I see the ARIN meetings, they should be more of a "rubber stamp"

I suggest  this is a poor choice of venue to suggest the f2f meetings
should just be a rubber stamp for what's discussed here on PPML.

I would expect participants in only the mailing list to be biased
towards valuing the mailing list,     and participants in only the f2f
 meetings  to be more likely to wish the f2f meetings have more
weight.

If people attending the f2f meeting say the f2f meetings should be
discounted,or people on the mailing list say the mailing list should
be discounted, at those venues, then it might merit some thought.


>> > 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.

Maybe so...  but how many people read the extensive discussion?
And do what was brought up in the mailing list discussion get
summarized and repeated at the f2f meetings?

I should think mailing list and f2f meeting should be weight equally
in terms of input,  as long as the input provided is cogent and
rational.

As I see it...  more thought can be put into a mailing list post, more
details can be worked out,  and it is especially suitable to go at
semantics like text of the policy, but there is also a lot more noise,
and some posts tend to be long or include irrelevent points.

f2f meetings are probably more suitable for discussing whether there
should be such a policy in the first place.

Less preparation can be put into a response at a f2f meeting, since
you cannot predict the discussion,  but it also means the response can
be more focused,  and can mean the speaker is more committed.     Idle
thoughts frequently make their way to a mailing list, whereas, someone
taking the time to travel to a f2f meeting,   is going have thought a
lot about the matter, ahead of time.


If anything should be given more weight, it should be a new venue...

Perhaps a forum/website where all members of the public who
participated in either discussion can submit  exactly 1  position and
200 character (web,SMS, or e-mail) response  for each proposal,
within 12 hours of the close of the f2f meeting,   to be made public,
  and can refer to any specific  point(s)  mentioned in either venue.

But no more than the 200 character limit.

And  that  'special venue'  can be given more weight,  while  f2f
meeting, and public discussions of all types that proceeded it,   are
treated equal.


After all, discussions can sometimes influence members of the public
to change their mind,  even if  they  never got a chance to say that
person X  convinced them to change their mind about some point :)

--
-Mysid