[arin-ppml] Suggestions for PDP improvement

[John Curran]

On Nov 10, 2011, at 6:51 PM, William Herrin wrote:

> If I could offer an example of OVERT corruption I'd call for the
> person's head instead of merely criticizing the process. As near as I
> can figure the folks on the AC are fundamentally good people.

That's reassuring.

> Conflicts of interest don't magically make good people perfidious. But
> they do distort decision making processes. They give you a sense of
> entitlement where there is none, as in a couple of Bill Darte's recent
> posts. They cause you to reject and dismiss critical feedback even as
> you beg folks to offer it.

"Sense of entitlement" is much clearer to me in this context than
using the phrase "conflict of interest" (but point taken in either
case.) 

I know that you'd prefer to discard the PDP (both present and the
proposed revision) but regarding handling of feedback, the revised 
proposed PDP (under the "Supported by the Community" principle) does
have more direction: "Furthermore, any specific concerns expressed 
by a significant portion of the community must have been explicitly 
considered by the ARIN AC in their assessment of the policy change."

> I was around for the tail end of the IRPEP. I remember the final
> straws of confused and conflicting policy proposals where it was
> difficult to determine what one was consenting to or opposing. Where
> good ideas fell into limbo as the authors lost interest or refused to
> embrace a wider audience. 2011-1 being one of the notable exceptions,
> I'll grant that the average craftsmanship on the language has improved
> under the PDP.
> 
> But you know what? If the problem with the IRPEP was poor language,
> hire us a language tutor or two. Someone to walk authors through
> crafting the policy language to say what the authors intend it to say.
> That'll give us better, clearer policy without sacrificing the bottom
> of the bottom up process.

The most significant change was changing ownership of the draft 
policies clearly to be under control of the ARIN AC, as opposed
to the submitter.  I don't think that it necessarily has to be
an "either one or the other" situation and agree that something
was lost for what was gained.  More thought is needed here on how
to obtain the best of both.

>>  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.
> 
> The problem we're solving is the PDP's alienation of the people at the
> bottom of the bottom-up process, the bottom which serves as the
> foundation of ARIN's legitimacy.
> 
> Despite its faults, the IRPEP offered amazing, brilliant public access
> to the process. A beacon in a night populated by the likes of ICANN
> and the FCC. The PDP falls far short of it.

I'd like to hear from other policy proposal submitters in this area,
(as I'm not certain all have had experiences similar to your own) but
the feedback is helpful for the current revision process as well.

Thanks!
/John 

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN