[arin-ppml] Suggestions for PDP improvement

Alexander, Daniel Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com
Fri Nov 11 14:57:48 EST 2011

Hello Bill,

If I try to sum up your thoughts on the PDP would this be fair? You prefer
a process where policy development is driven more by the Internet
"Community" (both members and non-members of ARIN), and less by any
member-elected body.

On a related note, do you think there are any efficiencies to be gained by
granting more flexibility to a member-elected body rather than waiting for
a large body to reach an uncontested conclusion? Of course this is
provided it can be countered with appropriate checks and balances to try
and prevent the conflicts of interest you have mentioned? Do you think
this is possible?

One of the the items we discussed at length with the proposed PDP changes
was to incorporate the ability to poll the mailing list in addition to the
show of hands at a PPM. This expands the audience of those who can be
counted, and provides a wider sample of opinion not limited to those who
can travel to a meeting. Do you think this will help provide a better
corollary to the decisions the AC may want to make?

Thank you for driving this topic.
-Dan Alexander

On 11/10/11 8:56 PM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

>On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 7:14 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>>>  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.
>Hi John,
>As would I. In fairness I'm almost certainly suffering a mild case of
>rose colored glasses.
>The final IRPEP before the we switched to the PDP is here:
>The AC's behavior as individuals and as a group differed in some
>interesting ways due to the differences in the process. I'd like to
>talk my way through the process I remember:
>A. During the AC's initial review of a proposed policy, the AC
>operating under the IRPEP almost always fell into the role described
>in the IRPEP's point 2: the shepherd encouraged the author to make
>revisions he felt would enhance the proposal. After some back and
>forth the AC ended up at point 1: adopt as a formal policy proposal.
>B. When the AC exercised review point 3: abandon a proposal
>immediately, it was usually because the proposal didn't express
>actionable policy or it expressed a proposal so obviously the same as
>something the the community had considered and rejected that the toss
>was a no-brainer.
>C. I don't remember if anyone ever exercised the right to petition. If
>they did, they needed only 4 statements of support to adopt the text
>as a formal policy proposal. IIRC, the AC essentially didn't try to
>stop anything for which there was a chance of four people saying, "I
>want." This set a VERY low barrier to entry for anyone in the
>community with a number policy idea and allowed some obvious
>non-starters to burn time at the meeting.
>D. As you pointed out, the author retained control of the text. I
>recall the AC members offering any number of insightful suggestions
>along with the occasional flop, but the original author chose whether
>and how to integrate them. I personally remember Bill Darte's very
>valuable help with my own first attempt at drafting a policy.
>E. Presentation at the meetings was uneven. Some authors made
>energetic presentations with lively Q&A. In other cases the text was
>read in a monotone on behalf of an author who wasn't there. In some
>cases the text stayed in flux up to and during the presentation. It
>became difficult count the consensus because folks had spoken to so
>many different versions.
>F. At the meeting, consensus was polled and counted.
>G. After the meeting, the AC made its official analysis and either
>elected to abandon the proposal or move it to last call. I don't
>recall the text seeing revision of any significance at this point,
>though maybe someone can point out an example where it was. I don't
>remember the AC ever failing to move a popular proposal to last call.
>I recall a few contentious proposals that had at least as much
>opposition as support making it to last call.
>H. The last call was relatively brief and was basically a time to get
>your final word in on the last revision of the text. It was really
>up-or-down, not a time for suggesting change.
>I. If the text survived last call without a material change in
>consensus from the meeting and discussion then the AC generally
>recommended it to the board for adoption.
>J. A fair number of proposals didn't arrive at the board in the form
>of actionable policy language ready to be dropped in to the NRPM, so
>the board often did a bit of work tweaking the text.
>Bill Herrin
>William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list