[arin-ppml] Petition draft 2011-1 last call

[Owen DeLong]

> 
> I don't ask you to find something in the PDP that isn't there, but if
> the honest answer is, "Sorry, the community has no direct recourse for
> this AC action under the PDP," I'd prefer that you state it plainly.
> That might allow the discussion to move from acknowledging that
> there's a problem to how the problem might be fixed.
> 

Bill,

The community has several direct recourses available.

First, you can state your opposition to the draft in last call, as you have
done. Your opposition does not go unnoticed or unheeded. However, it
is taken in the context of the comments by others either in support or
in opposition to the proposal.

Second, if the AC does forward the draft to the board after last call
is completed and you feel that the AC did not properly follow the PDP,
you can make your case to the board and ask that they take appropriate
action on the policy (whether that be returning it to the AC, insisting that
it go through more community discussions, return to another meeting,
etc.).

I'm not sure, honestly, whether the petition process allows for a petition
against the AC forwarding something to the board after last call is
complete, but, I would think that if it does not, it should. I am, however,
confident that if you make a compelling case to the board that the AC
did not follow the PDP, the board will take that seriously and will take
the appropriate action. I know that in the past, the board has remanded
at least one policy back to the AC because they were less than 100% confident
in the AC's action. In the case I'm aware of, it had to do with a low voter
turnout at the AC meeting. The AC (with more members present) at the
next meeting) upheld the prior vote unanimously. However, we did also
adopt a rule requiring a minimum of 8 AC votes to take final action
on a policy proposal or draft policy.

As John stated, you do have the petition process to undo the AC's
edits and push forward a prior version of the text. That is a direct
recourse against the AC's action. I recognize that you do not consider
it desirable in this case. I'm inclined to agree with you.

Where I disagree with you is when you turn that into a belief that
the AC is somehow incentivized to bring bad policy text to the meeting
simply for the sake of being able to do bigger rewrites later in the
process.

I can assure you that the AC process on 2011-1 has been far from
ideal and that the AC has struggled and agonized over this policy
to bring it to its current state. We would all much rather have had
ideal text to present before the meeting. However, we're also
volunteers with day jobs and other demands on our time and
sometimes the ideal doesn't quite get achieved. If you want to say
that means we screwed up or fell down on the job, OK, I'll accept
that might be valid criticism in this case. However, we are all
doing our best on a fairly heavy policy workload. Could we have
done better on this policy before Philadelphia? Yes, I believe we 
could. However, faced with the situation that existed after the
Philadelphia meeting, I believe that we took the best action possible.
I understand and accept that you do not agree.

Finally, you have the recourse of voting for AC and/or BoT members
each year. You also have the option of running for either position.

Owen