[arin-ppml] [arin-council] AC Role in Petitions

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 14, 2011, at 3:01 PM, Charles O'Hern wrote:

> On 4/14/11 2:04 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> 
>>> I'd venture to say that most of the less vocal members of this list probably don't tend to support many of these petitions because there's an implicit trust, valid or not, that the
>>> AC knows what they are doing.  There's the run-on thought "I don't feel qualified to discuss topic X, but I trust the opinion of 'John Q. Smith' on the AC and since the AC voted
>>> thus I assume 'John Q. Smith' voted that way and so I don't speak up about the petition to re-introduce the proposal about subject X."
>>> 
>>> However I think it would be prudent and would serve the community well if, when a petition like these are raised, all the members of the AC speak up with how they voted on the
>>> subject that is under petition and why they voted that way.  Then 'John Q. Smith' would say "I voted thus and here's why" which might trigger more responses from the less vocal
>>> sectors of the PPML.
>>> 
>> I would actually advocate that on policy matters where the AC conducts role call votes anyway, we should probably publish those votes as part of the minutes. I think this is a valid step towards greater transparency and I thank you for the suggestion.
> 
> This would be especially valuable if the 'why' behind the votes is included.
> 
I have no problem with the idea that AC members who wish to explain the why behind their votes should do so on PPML following any petition initiation.

I would suggest that requiring every AC member to document the reason for their vote on every policy would add significant overhead to the process
without actually adding value.

>>>> Considering that the AC typically contains some of the more vocal and active community members and proposal drafters (as it should), removing them from the petition process should
>>>> show some sound reasoning, other than "the AC makes decisions as a body" and therefore the members of the AC are no longer part of the community who may petition ARIN and PDP actions.
>>> 
>>> Yes, but, given that only 10 individuals from 10 organizations are needed to pass a petition, reducing the member of the AC's ability to be counted in that number seems to be a
>>> good idea because even 1 or 2 AC members would count as 10-20% of the 'votes' necessary to override the majority opinion of the AC.  I had a thought that this should be larger, but
>>> Joe is right in that participation in the petitions tends to be fairly low already.
>>> 
>> I think for the current mechanism, 10 is a reasonable number. I'm inclined to suggest some modifications to the petition process where both opposition to and support of a petition actually count and the net result of the two needs to add up to some number for the petition to succeed.
>> Currently, I'm thinking something like a threshold of +5 where opposition counts -1 and support counts +1 and only different individuals from different organizations are counted. (e.g. no individual gets more than one vote and no organization can weigh in with more than one individual).
> 
> I like the idea, but thinking about it more before giving it more full support.  more comments below.
> 
Yeah, me too.

>>>> 
>>>> Do AC members need to resign in order to participate in the PDP petition process?
>>>> 
>>>> Joe
>>> 
>>> I certainly hope no one feels that way.  Being vocal is participating, even in this one instance where being vocal, by virtue of the AC members choosing to do so, doesn't count
>>> towards the tally of 10.  I know that if Owen, or Martin, or any other vocal members speak up on a petition topic, I am personally far more likely to speak up also, if I support
>>> the petition.
>>> 
>> FWIW, I do not support the petition and I did vote to abandon the policies in question. I do not believe that they will serve the community and I believe they are contrary to a good and stable management of the number space.
> 
> Which is exactly the kind of statement I think would be useful to see from all the AC members when such a petition is raised.
> 
I figured... Exactly why I made it.

>>> The only actual suggestion I have to this whole thing at this time might be a rephrasing of the email message to the list announcing the petition.  That message says:
>>> "If you wish to support this petition, post a statement of support to PPML on this thread."
>>> This implies 'if you don't support the petition, don't say anything'.
>>> Should this phrasing be changed to suggest posting a statement of either assent or dissent?
>>> 
>> Well, in the petition process currently, only statements of support matter. Statements of opposition to the petition may be useful to inform discussion, but, they are not counted in terms of measuring the success or failure of the petition.
> 
> Then the phrasing matches the policy, which is good.
> 
Yep.

>>> Speaking of which:  I do not support either petitions to reintroduce prop-134 or prop-136 for discussion because I still don't support those proposals.  The important fact here
>>> though is that I took the time to re-consider my stance because of this vocal discussion.
>>> 
>> That's good input. Do you think that the petition process should be modified to take into account both statements of support and opposition? Do you think that in such a circumstance, statements of support or opposition from the AC would be valid?
> 
> Yes but also I think since the petitions are to re-introduce the topic to the PPML for discussion, I'm inclined to think that volume of statements should weigh in towards accenting
> the petition.  If we have 10 yes's and 10 no's on a petition to re-introduce a subject, it might indicate that there's something to the topic that needs to be discussed.
> 
There are petitions at several levels of the process:

	1.	Petition to put it on the AC docket (if AC abandons before putting on docket).
	2.	Petition to move to draft policy and discuss at upcoming Policy Meeting (if AC
		abandons off docket rather than moving to draft policy)
	3.	Petition to move to last call (if AC abandons after policy meeting)

I think there might be a couple more, but, the point is that there is more than one
place in the process where an AC decision can be petitioned.

I do like your idea that a total count of >n (where n is TBD) even if it doesn't meet
the petition threshold of positive responses leads to continued discussion, but,
I worry about two potential problems:

	1.	The ability to use it as a DOS vector on the abandonment process.
	2.	The chilling effect of realizing that your expression of opposition to the
		petition might actually help the petition succeed.

Owen