[arin-ppml] Follow-up on Petition of ARIN-prop-134 and -136
jcurran at arin.net
Wed Apr 27 23:42:17 EDT 2011
On Apr 27, 2011, at 11:24 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> On Apr 27, 2011, at 6:33 PM, John Curran wrote:
>> 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.
In each announcement of the start of each petition (as posted to PPML
frominfo at arin.net) it reads:
" For more information on starting and participating in petitions,
see PDP Petitions at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html"
i.e. if someone somehow became aware of the petition without being on
PPML, the announcement of the petition includes a direct reference to
the procedures. See attached announcement of your petition regarding
ARIN-prop-134, as an example.
> 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.
See above. Each petition announcement contains a reference to the
>> 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.
Stakeholders who don't follow PPML but somehow become aware of an
AC action which warrants petitioning would be advised to read the
information in the petition announcements about participating in
President and CEO
> From: ARIN <info at arin.net>
> Date: April 13, 2011 2:07:46 PM EDT
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Petition for Discussion of ARIN-prop-134
> The message below started a petition regarding the ARIN Advisory
> Council's decision to abandon ARIN-prop-134. The AC's decision was
> posted by ARIN staff to PPML on 23 March 2011.
> If successful, this petition will change ARIN-prop-134 into a Draft
> Policy which will be published for adoption discussion on the PPML and
> at the Public Policy Meeting in October 2011. If the petition fails, the
> proposal will be closed.
> For this petition to be successful, the petition needs statements of
> support from at least 10 different people from 10 different
> organizations. If you wish to support this petition, post a statement of
> support to PPML on this thread.
> The petition will end 20 April 2011. ARIN staff will post the result of
> the petition to PPML.
> For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP
> Petitions at:
> The proposal text is below and at:
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
More information about the ARIN-PPML