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

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 18, 2011, at 4:12 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 2:13 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote
>> 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.
> 
> Well, we wouldn't want that. Where's the public list that was set up
> for folks interested in discussing PDP changes, so they could avoid
> running roughshod over other PPML discussions?
> 
Sigh...

1.	arin-discuss comes to mind.
2.	I wasn't saying that changes to the PDP should not be discussed
	on PPML. I was saying that there was value to having some of
	those discussions and some of that work done off-line and later
	having a more fleshed-out result presented back to the community
	for further review and feedback rather than having all of the work
	take place in full public view.

> 
>>        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 fear the PDP committee's plan is to solicit ideas privately, chew on
> them in a back room and present a substantially finished "fait
> accompli" product to the community. Sure, they'll condescend to make
> minor adjustments, but by the time any of us out in the public see it,
> it'll be too late to consider the general themes. They'll be set in
> stone.
> 
I don't see it that way at all. 

> Which is what you just intimated with a somewhat different spin.
> 
No, it is not. In fact, it is rather quite the opposite. I believe that any
recommended change with community support behind it will be
properly considered, even if it means that the PDP committee
goes back to square one and starts over.

> 
>> I do not believe it is fair to characterize all forms of off-line work
>> as "back-room dealings".
> 
> The folks in the inner circle never do. The idea that you can work
> more effectively without the argument, debate and occasional vitriol
> inherent in iteratively consulting the public is so very seductive...

I believe that we do iteratively consult the public, so, I think your
characterization is, again, unfair.

> The public will understand that we selected these people to shape our
> ideas because they were the wisest people to talk to, not because
> there was any funny business, right? We're honest and the public gets
> that, don't they? And surely the bias introduced by selecting these
> particular people won't greatly change the results from what an
> informed public would have chosen, will it?
> 
Where do you get this stuff?

1.	I don't expect the public to necessarily understand or agree with
	any of our actions unless we have first asked about them and then
	taken the action that the community most appeared to support.

2.	Yes, the community did elect us, in part, to shape their ideas
	and desires into policy. They knew that when we were nominated,
	they knew that when the members voted for us, and, they know
	that when they talk to us on the list and at public policy meetings
	and in other venues physical and electronic.

	However, that does not mean that we are allowed to or expect
	to operate in a vacuum. I believe each and every AC member
	wants and expects feedback from the community on the issues
	of the day.

3.	If you really feel that there is some form of back-room deal
	going on that is somehow going to cause a problem, I expect
	and commend your efforts to bring that to light. However, I
	do not think making general broad and baseless innuendos
	without any specific situation or action that can be examined
	and discussed provides any benefit to the community. Indeed,
	such broad and baseless expression of suspicion foments
	fear and distrust without furthering discussion or providing
	any positive benefit to anyone.

> Seductive. And so very corrupting.
> 
If it were anywhere close to what you are characterizing, I suppose
that might be true. I think you are so far off base, however, that I
just can't equate your comments to the reality of the situation.

Owen