[arin-ppml] Curious about consensus

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Apr 25 11:39:39 EDT 2011

On Apr 25, 2011, at 8:27 AM, Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:

> 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.
I don't believe that is a fair characterization of our process.

I do think that the AC sometimes moves policy forward with
less than ideal language. Not because we are hoping that a
proposal with bad language will push people to fix the language,
but, because at the time we believe it is an improvement over
existing policy and right or wrong, we generally believe that the
language expresses our intent.

For example, until recently, it had not occurred to me that
there was any chance staff would misinterpret our intent in
2009-1/8.3 where we expected transferred resources to be
subject to an RSA, not some form of RSA which might be
LRSA, RSA, or something staff made up on the fly.

We're human and we do the best we can. We make mistakes.

I do not believe that anyone on the AC deliberately moves
what we believe at the time to be bad language forward
hoping that someone else will fix it later. We spend a great
deal of time working on the language of policies in general
and for the most part, I think we have done fairly well.

> 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.
That is not what the US Government does at all. Indeed, I would
argue that you get many more laws that are poorly constructed
than you get ARIN policies. I won't digress into a list (for one thing,
I doubt there would be universal agreement on the contents of such
a list), but, I am sure everyone already has their own thoughts on the


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list