[arin-ppml] Curious about consensus

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 4/24/2011 2:39 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
>
> In addition to the factors Leo and Owen have already expressed, it's
> also worth noting that some of these proposals had strong consensus in
> favor of them in principle, but more divided opinion on the draft
> policy text frozen for the meeting.  In those cases a significant
> amount of work has already been done to incorporate the views
> expressed at the meeting.  Some of those proposals are now out for
> Last Call on PPML.  In my opinion that is an opportunity for anyone
> with any additional input they haven't already shared (or new input
> since the latest revisions) to share it.  We can always revise draft
> policies further, and send them out for another Last Call if needed,
> before deciding whether to recommend them to the Board for adoption.
>

Joe, this is I think the central issue you are bringing up and it is
one of my concerns also - this is how "shit happens" as the old saying
goes.

The AC has always taken this approach, that by pushing a proposal that
has bad language but a good idea that this is going to push people
to fix the language.  Sometimes that happens and sometimes it doesn't 
and when it doesn't we get bad policy - and sometimes that gets fixed
by successive policy proposals.  Sometimes it doesen't and it takes 
something egregious (like this Microsoft/Nortal address grab) before
the bad/unclear language in the policy gets fixed.

The only other way to do it is like the US government does which is 
unless the proposed bill is absolutely perfect with no objectors, that
even the most minority crank group can win by saying no.  And that is
IMHO a worse way.

Ted