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

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 18, 2011, at 10:52 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 12:19 PM, cja at daydream.com <packetgrrl at gmail.com> wrote:
>> We participate on ppml.
> 
> Half of you do not. That half's participation is limited to showing up
> for the meetings and whatever back-room dealings they have out of the
> public eye.
> 
> 
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 1:28 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Keep in mind that this AC rule didn't come about until after the AC was
>> presented with a draft of the new PDP.
> 
> Are early versions of that draft available for public comment or is
> it, however well or poorly conceived, a product of back-room dealings?
> 
Bill,
	I do not believe it is fair to characterize all forms of off-line work
as "back-room dealings". If every nuance of every discussion on every
detail of every process were to take place on PPML, the noise level would
greatly exceed signal and virtually nothing could get done.

	I believe the plan is for the PDP committee to get to the point where
they feel that the set of changes has good support from the AC and the
BoT and then bring it before the community for further review. I think this
is a perfectly legitimate approach and does not constitute back-room
dealings with the negative connotations that implies.

	The PDP committee has been very good about soliciting input
from the AC at several steps in the process and there are two
AC members serving on the committee. The community is welcome
at any time to submit input on how the PDP can be improved through
the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) on the ARIN
web site.

Owen