[arin-ppml] Suggestions for PDP improvement

[John Curran]

On Nov 10, 2011, at 4:27 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> ...
> Charging a second member-elected body not with shepherding policy
> ideas through the process but instead actively developing it created a
> CONFLICT OF INTEREST which has WRECKED THE CHECKS AND BALANCES. This
> past couple weeks' sorry mess is just the latest example.

Bill - 

  We've had an ARIN AC since the very beginning which has
  been distinct from the Board but charged with advising 
  the ARIN Board on number resource policy matters.  Are
  you asserting that having the ARIN AC both lead the 
  development and make the recommendations on policies
  presents a greater conflict of interest than just their
  duty to recommend policies?  If you are doing so, and 
  pointing to 2011-1 as an example, then please let me 
  know asap (privately if desired) if you feel that any 
  ARIN AC members are acting out of interests other than 
  to the ARIN community at large.  I have seen absolutely
  no evidence of such, and actually see many AC members
  which are going out of their way to solicit any and all
  input from the community.

> AC members can't "not be" ISP industry experts. And we wouldn't want
> them to if they could. The alternative is what we found in the IRPEP:
> they don't write ARIN policy as a group. Instead, they help
> individuals (including themselves) write and bring forward those
> individual's policy proposals.

  You realize that the change occurred intentionally, with the
  result being better and clearer policy.  I have no objection
  to recommend to the ARIN Board changing it back but definitely 
  want to know that we're solving an actual problem by doing so.  

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN