[arin-ppml] Curious about consensus

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 24, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Joe Maimon wrote:

> AC, All,
> 
> I find myself curious about how the AC has determined consensus of support for moving these proposals to last call.
> 
> Now I understand that the meeting polls are not even close to an actual vote procedure and should not be interpreted as such, but I was under the impression that they were valuable gauges and indicators for community opinion on draft proposals, by proxy of those interested enough to attend, as it is open to the world.
> 
> I understand the AC has multiple inputs to consider and the public policy meeting polls are just one, albeit they are one that is fairly easy to quote, reference and record. I have done such and while some of the recent decisions on Draft Policies by the AC seem simple enough, there remains others I find myself curious as to how the AC came to the determination they did on their disposition.
> 
> I would really appreciate if some members could find the time to shed some light on their consensus evaluating processes and to share their thoughts concerning that portion of the AC's role in the policy crafting activities.
> 
> http://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVII/
> 

> From the meeting:
> 
> ARIN-2011-2: Protecting Number Resources
> 
> So those in favor number, 7; and those against number 45. There's a total number of people meeting in the room and remote are 116. That's where we are for that proposition. So next one.
> 
> (The AC abandoned this one, to my eyes its the right call)
> 
OK, so, I think this doesn't require much of an explanation. There was wide spread community opposition and
we abandoned it.

> ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses
> 
> So the proposition before us is 2011-6. The total number of people in the room and by remote is 118. Voting for it as is, with no further assumptions made, six are in favor and 28 are against.
> 
> (The AC moved this one to last call)
> 
This ignores the additional questions asked of the room and the comments made both on PPML and in the
room.

I cannot speak for the rest of the AC, but, I felt that there was strong consensus among the community to
achieve the following policy goals:

	1.	Do not send addresses back to IANA to have them lie stranded there with no
		clear policy for reissuing them anywhere. (The current IANA state, by the way).

	2.	Do not return addresses to IANA without a global policy (a policy acceptable to
		the ARIN community).

The changes we made to the draft policy took it from its original "don't return anything period"
which received strong opposition and minimal (but vocal) support to being more in line
with the stated desires (and show of hands on a subsequent question) from the community.

Because I felt that the policy was urgent in nature (failing to move it to last call would
cause it to be overtaken by events), I felt it best to move the policy forward to last call
once we had modified it to be inline with the feedback we had received from the community.
I felt that if the community had strong opposition to the revised form, we could always
move it back to our docket or modify it again and send it for another round.

So far, there has been little opposition in last call (just the few vocal people who liked
the original version). There has been little support expressed in last call, but, I think that
many people approach last call on a "silence is consent" basis, so, expressions of support
in last call tend to be somewhat rare. The lack of significant opposition leads me to believe
that we are fairly close to the mark with this policy.

> ARIN-2011-1: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy
> 
> Okay. 2011-1, total number of people voting was 119. In favor of the proposition, 18 people; against the proposition, 11. So there we have that.
> 
> (The AC punted on this one)
> 
I think that punted is not a fair characterization. We postponed the decision to our next meeting to give the
shepherds time to better digest the rather significant community input and work on revisions to the policy
that would make it more in tune with that feedback. We actually spent quite a bit of time working on this in
the workshop before coming to the conclusion that the amount of work required would go well beyond
the time available.

As such, I think that it was the right thing to do and I think there will be movement on this at our next
meeting (May 19th).

> ARIN-2011-4: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure
> 
> In relation to 2011-4, total people meeting room, 112. In favor, 36; against, 10.
> 
> (The AC moved this one to last call, looks like another good call)
> 
OK, so, I'll assume no need to further explain here, either.

> 
> ARIN-2011-3: Better IPv6 Allocations for ISPs
> 
> Okay. So 2011-3. Total number of people in the meeting room and remote, 116. In favor of as written were 20. And against, 17.
> 
> ...
> 
> Thank you. So in relation to the idea that further work should be done on it and we move forward, the vote was 55 in favor and three against.
> 
> (The AC moved this one to last call with significant revision)
> 
Right... It is unfortunate that the question "support with the errata corrected" was not asked in the meeting.
A large number of people from the community approached me during the subsequent break and stated
that they could not support it as written because of the errata, but, would support it with those corrections.
There were also statements of desire/support for the few additional changes that were pretty wide-spread.

Given that much input in favor of the policy with changes that had been well discussed in the meeting
and published on the mailing list, I felt that there was consensus for the policy with the modifications
and feel that last call was a good opportunity to gauge that more thoroughly. So far, in last call, there have
been several statements of support and the opposition has been minimal.

> ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension
> 
> Those in favor of 2011-5. There's a total number of people in the meeting room and remote of 116. In favor of it were 30 and against it were 15.
> 
> (The AC moved this one to last call)
> 
With a 2:1 margin in favor of the policy, it seems to me that we are in line with the intent and will of the
community. The support on the mailing list and in hallway discussions from my perspective enjoys
a similar level of support.

> 
> I fully expect that my faith and confidence in the hard work and good intentions of the AC volunteer community members will be rewarded.
> 
Hopefully you feel that it has.

Owen