[arin-ppml] Follow-up on Petition of ARIN-prop-134 and -136

[Benson Schliesser]

Hi, John.

On Apr 27, 2011, at 6:33 PM, John Curran wrote:

>> Is there an "unwritten rule" that disenfranchises non-subscribers, or anybody (except the AC), from the petition process?
> 
> From <https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html>:
> 
> "Petitions take place on the PPML; those who wish to 
>  start a petition and/or participate in petitions must 
>  be subscribed to the list."

Thanks for pointing out this document - it contains useful details, and certainly more details than the PDP itself.

Given that PDP section 2.4 defines the Discuss Petition but doesn't mention or reference the requirement quoted above, I was unaware of it.  And the petition instructions didn't mention it either.  Under these circumstances, disenfranchisement of non-subscribers is obviously not an "unwritten rule", but since it's not actually in the PDP one might argue that it's not a policy development "rule" at all.

However, admittedly, the requirement is written down as implemented and can be found if one knows where to look.  Thus I'll not argue the point any further.  If I wish to continue work on 134 and 136 then I will submit revised text to the AC.  I do, however, suggest that you update the petition instructions and PDP to reflect the reality of implementation.

>  Since petitions are against specific AC actions, it 
>  would best for petitioners to follow the discussion 
>  on PPML so that they can make an informed decision
>  on such actions before petitioning.

I agree - it would be "best" for many people to be informed of ARIN policy discussion.  But it hardly seems "open", to exclude stakeholders from being heard simply because they don't wish to subscribe to PPML.  We are making policy that affects a much wider community, and limiting input to our own voices (recently described as an "echo chamber" effect) is not a good idea.

Cheers,
-Benson