[arin-ppml] Fwd: Proposed Revision to the ARIN Policy Development Process

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Mon Oct 10 09:19:26 EDT 2011

Overall, I think the changes are good. However, I have made several notes inline below where I think things could be improved. Many of these are nits, but, there are also some substantial changes.


> ## * ##
> 1.	Purpose

> The PDP is designed to bring forth clear, technically sound and useful 
> policies for ARIN to use in the management and administration of 
> Internet number resources. To accomplish this goal, the PDP charges the 
> community-elected ARIN Advisory Council (AC) as the primary policy 
> development body with appropriate checks and balances on its performance 
> in that role.
This is a little bit of a nit, but, unless the BoT has chosen to modify the election process for the AC such that we are elected by the community, I believe that should read member-elected rather than community-elected.
> Part I of this document provides the underlying goals for the Policy 
> Development Process (including its purpose, scope, principles, and 
> criteria for policy changes) and Part II details the specific Policy 
> Development Process used for development of changes to Internet number 
> resource policy.  Part III details the processes for petitioning 
> specific aspects of the Policy Development Process.

Another nit, the inconsistencies in the numbering are confusing. This paragraph, for example, uses roman numerals (I, II, III), but, the actual document text while the document is numbered with spelled-out numbers (Part one, Part two, Part three) with subsections numbered with arabic numerals with no precursor (e.g. 2. Definitions vs. I.2 Definitions). The numbering should at least be made consistent for each level of hierarchy. Ideally, the numbers would also be made hierarchical (e.g. I.2 Definitions)  and/or consistent indentation added to clarify hierarchy.
> 2.	Definitions
> Internet Number Resources
> Internet number resources consist of Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) 
> address space, Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) address space, and 
> Autonomous System (AS) numbers.

Although this is an unlikely scenario, it is possible that other protocol versions could be deployed while ARIN is still managing number resource policy. I think a more generic definition would be appropriate here, such as:

Internet number resources are those sets of numeric identifiers for which ARIN provides registration services. At the time of writing, these included Internet Protocol Addresses (regardless of version) and Autonomous System (AS) numbers.
> Policy Proposal
> An idea for a policy that is submitted to the policy development 
> process.  ARIN staff work with idea proposers to insure clarity of the 
> policy proposals, and the ARIN Advisory Council confirms the policy 
> proposal is in scope (per Section 3) of the Policy Development Process.
> Draft Policy
> A policy proposal that is under active consideration by the Advisory 
> Council.  A draft policy results from a policy proposal being accepted 
> by the Advisory Council for further development. The Advisory Council 
> accepts additional policy proposals when the AC Chair determines that 
> the Advisory Council has sufficient available resources to undertake 
> additional development work.
This is a significant change in terminology and removes a useful distinction in policy status from the AC's toolkit. Currently, once we place a proposal on our document, we work on the proposal until we feel that they are ready for adoption discussion at a meeting, then, we make them draft policies. Proposals and draft policies live in separate numbering spaces. I think altering the definition in this manner will create confusion without benefit.
> Recommended Draft Policy
> A draft policy that has been recommended for adoption by the Advisory 
> Council.  Policies are recommended for adoption once the Advisory 
> Council determines the draft policy meets ARIN’s Principles of Internet 
> number resource policy as specified in Section 4.
> Adopted Policy
> A policy that has been adopted by the ARIN Board of Trustees.  Adopted 
> policies are incorporated into the Network Resource Policy Manual (NRPM)
I believe the better term here is "Number Resource Policy Manual". I can't tell whether this was a deliberate rename or just a typo.
> Public Policy Mailing List (PPML)
> The ARIN public mailing list for discussion of Internet number resource 
> policy.
> Public Policy Meeting (PPM)
> ARIN meetings open to the public for discussion of Internet number 
> resource policy.
> Petition
> An action initiated by any member of the community (including a proposal 
> originator) if they are dissatisfied with the action taken by the 
> Advisory Council regarding a specific policy proposal or draft policy.
> 3.	Scope of Internet Number Resource Policies
> 3.1.	 Policies, not Processes, Fees, or Services
> Internet number resource policies developed through the PDP describe the 
> policies and guidelines to be followed in number resource management, 
> not the procedures that ARIN staff will use to implement the policies. 
> ARIN staff develops appropriate procedures to implement policies after 
> they are adopted.
> Internet number resource policies are also distinctly separate from ARIN 
> general business practices. ARIN's general business processes, fees, and 
> services are not within the purview of the Policy Development Process, 
> and policies developed through the PDP cannot define or establish ARIN 
> fees or service offerings. All matters concerning fees and service 
> offerings are part of the fiduciary responsibility of the Board of 
> Trustees.  Note that the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ARIN 
> ACSP) may be used to propose changes in non-policy areas.
Sometimes there are non-policy aspects of the desirable implementation of a policy proposal. In an ideal world, a mechanism would exist for making such submissions to the ACSP  and tying that ACSP to the Proposal and expressing the desired level of interdependence (a depends on b, b depends on a, neither should be activated independent of the other).
> 3.2.	 Relevant and applicable within the ARIN region
> Policies developed through the PDP are community self-regulatory 
> statements that govern ARIN’s actions in the management of Internet 
> number resources. Policy statements must be applicable to some portion 
> of the community or number resources managed within the ARIN region, and 
> proposals to change policy must address a clearly defined and existing 
> problem with number resource policy in the region.
I recommend replacing "and existing problem" with "improvement". I think it is possible to make improvements to policy that are not necessarily a response to existing problems, per se.
> Note that the policy development process for global policies follows a 
> similar process within each RIR region with the additional process of 
> ratification by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 
> (ICANN).  The global policy development process is separately documented 
> and facilitated by the Address Supporting Organization Address Council 
> (ASO AC).
Actually, the global policy development process requires each RIR to pass the policy through their respective Policy Development Processes. As such, changing the AIRN PDP changes the Global PDP within the ARIN region as well. They are one in the same since the ARIN (and other RIR's) PDP(s) are incorporated by reference in the global PDP.
> 4.	Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy
> Internet Number resource policy recommended for adoption must satisfy 
> three important principles, specifically:  1) enabling fair and 
> Impartial number resource administration, 2) technically sound 
> (providing for uniqueness and usability of number resources), and 3) 
> supported by the community.
> 4.1.	Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
> Internet number resources must be managed with appropriate stewardship 
> and care. Internet number resource policy must conserve resources and 
> provide for fair and impartial distribution of resources according to 
> unambiguous processes and criteria. All policy statements must be clear, 
> complete, and concise, and any criteria that are defined in policy must 
> be simple and obtainable. Policies must be unambiguous and not subject 
> to varying degrees of interpretation.
s/obtainable/attainable/ ?
> 4.2.	 Technically Sound
> Policies for Internet number resources management must be evaluated for 
> soundness against three overarching technical requirements: 
> conservation, aggregation and registration.  More specifically, policies 
> for managing Internet number resources must:
> •	Support both conservation and efficient utilization of Internet number 
> resources to the extent feasible. Policy should maximize number resource 
> availability while respecting the significant cost to the Internet 
> community resulting from number resource depletion.
> •	Support the aggregation of Internet number resources in a hierarchical 
> manner to the extent feasible.  Policy should permit the routing 
> scalability that is necessary for continued Internet growth.  (Note that 
> neither ARIN, nor its policies, can guarantee routability of any 
> particular Internet number resource as that is dependent on the actions 
> of the individual Internet operators.)
> •	Support the unique registration of Internet number resources.  Policy 
> should prevent to the extent feasible any duplicate use of Internet 
> number resources that would disrupt Internet communications.
> The ARIN AC considers these requirements in assessing changes to policy 
> and only recommends those policies that achieve a technically sound 
> balance of these requirements.  The ARIN AC documents its technical 
> assessment for consideration by the community.
I believe that this last criteria (uniqueness) should be first and foremost. The other two were important for IPv4 and remain useful considerations in IPv6, but, uniqueness truly is job one.
> 4.3.	 Supported by the Community
> Changes to policy must be shown to have a strong level of support in the 
> community in order to be adopted. The determination of support is most 
> commonly done after discussion of the draft policy at the Public Policy 
> Meeting (PPM) or via online poll after discussion on the Public Policy 
> Mailing List (PPML).
> A strong level of community support for a policy change does not mean 
> unanimous; it may be supported by only a subset of the community, as 
> long as the policy change enjoys substantially more support than 
> opposition in the community active in the discussion.  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.
This paragraph concerns me. It could be construed, for example, to indicate that in moving a draft policy to recommended status, the AC must specifically note and explain each issue raised by any vocal minority in opposition to said draft policy. This could prove to be an avenue for DOS attacks against the AC.
> 5.	ARIN Board Criteria for Policy Changes
> In order to maintain fidelity to the duty performed by ARIN on behalf of 
> the Internet community, changes to Internet resource numbering policy 
> must meet two specific criteria before being adopted by the ARIN Board 
> of Trustees:  1) in compliance with law and ARIN’s mission, and 2) 
> developed via open and transparent processes
> 5.1.	 In Compliance with Law and ARIN’s Mission
> Policies developed through the PDP must advance ARIN’s mission, not 
> create unreasonable fiduciary or liability risk, and must be consistent 
> with ARIN's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and all applicable laws 
> and regulations.
> 5.2.	 Developed by Open & Transparent Processes
> Changes to policy must be developed via open and transparent processes 
> that provide for participation by all.  Policies must be considered be 
> in open, publicly accessible forum as part of the adoption process. 
> Policy discussions in the ARIN region are conducted on the Public Policy 
> Mail List (PPML) and in the Public Policy Meeting (PPM). There are no 
> qualifications for participation other than following the specified 
> rules of decorum necessary for constructive discussion. Anyone 
> interesting in participating in the process may subscribe to the PPML 
> and anyone interested may attend a PPM in person or via remote 
> participation methods.
...must be considered be in open... (Second "be" should be removed)

...Anyone interesting in participating... (s/interesting/interested/)
> All aspects of the PDP are documented and publicly available via the 
> ARIN website. The PPML is archived. The proceedings of each PPM are 
> published. All policies are documented in the Number Resource Policy 
> Manual (NRPM). All draft policies are cross referenced to the original 
> policy proposal, the archives of the PPML, all related PPM proceedings, 
> and the minutes of the appropriate Advisory Council and the ARIN Board 
> of Trustees meetings. The procedures that are developed to implement the 
> policy are documented, publicly available, and followed by the ARIN staff.
> This section provides the details of the ARIN Policy Development 
> Process. All references to “days” are business days unless otherwise 
> specified.
The term business days is not defined elsewhere in the PDP. Different organizations have different definitions of business days. I believe the ARIN definition is Monday through Friday exclusive of U.S. Federal holidays, but, I suggest that whatever definition ARIN follows should be made part of the PDP document if we are to use business days here.
> 1. The Policy Proposal
> Policy proposals may be submitted to the ARIN Policy Development process 
> by anyone in the global Internet community except for members of the 
> ARIN Board of Trustees or the ARIN staff. Policy proposals may be 
> submitted any time by completing the online policy proposal form on the 
> ARIN web site or by sending text copy of the form to policy at arin.net. 
> ARIN staff will work with the originator as described below to prepare 
> the policy proposal and make it available for consideration by the 
> Advisory Council.
...sending text copy... (sending a plain text copy...)

This isn't just a nit. First, there's the grammatical issue, which is a nit. However, also note the addition of the word plain. It could be argued that a PDF, Pages, RTF, or other file format containing the text is a "text copy" of the form.
> Upon receipt of a policy proposal form, the ARIN staff will work with 
> the proposal originator by providing feedback within 10 days regarding 
> the clarity and understanding of the proposal text. The merits of the 
> policy proposal itself are not evaluated at this time; the purpose of 
> this step is to insure that the proposal text will be clear and 
> understandable to the ARIN staff and community, and to receive any staff 
> comments regarding potential scope considerations of the policy proposal.
> The proposal originator may revise (or not) the proposal text based on 
> the feedback received, and when the originator indicates satisfaction 
> with the proposal text, the ARIN staff assigns it a policy proposal 
> number, posts the policy proposal to the public web site, and notifies 
> the Advisory Council of a new policy proposal available for initial 
> evaluation.
Is it intentional to remove the posting of the proposal by the staff to PPML in this process?

> 2. Policy Proposal Initial Evaluation
> The Advisory Council (AC) performs an initial evaluation of each policy 
> proposal in a timely manner to determine if the proposal is within scope 
> of the Policy Development Process.  This will include consideration of 
> comments received from staff regarding potential scope considerations of 
> the policy proposal.  Policy proposals which are determined by the 
> Advisory Council to be out of scope or clearly without merit may be 
> rejected at this point, and the Advisory Council announces the rejection 
> of a policy proposal along with an explanation of its reasoning to the PPML.
> The Advisory Council maintains a docket of draft policies under active 
> development. Any policy proposals that are not rejected upon initial 
> evaluation shall become draft policies on its docket. The AC Chair may 
> defer initial evaluation of all new policy proposals if the Chair 
> determines that there are insufficient resources available for 
> additional policy development work.
Could it be desirable to add a safety valve here where the AC can also make such a deferral by some supermajority (2/3rds of voting members present, for example)?
> 3. Draft Policy Discussion and Development
> The Advisory Council is responsible for the development of draft 
> policies on its docket to meet ARIN’s principles of Internet number 
> resource policy (as described in Part One of the PDP, Section 4). During 
> this effort, the Advisory Council participates in and encourages the 
> discussion of the draft policies on the PPML, notes the merits and 
> concerns raised, and then based on its understanding of the relevant 
> issues, the Advisory Council may take various actions including 
> abandoning, revising or combining the draft policy with other draft 
> policies.
It is also possible we may want to split a draft policy into multiple draft policies. This should, IMHO, either be stated above, or, s/including/including, but not limited to,/
> The Advisory Council announces any actions taken on draft policies along 
> with an explanation of its reasoning to the PPML.  The explanation 
> should show a full consideration of the issues leading to the action.. 
> The Advisory Council (AC) may have specific AC members or members of the 
> community (including the proposal originator) collaborate in the 
> consideration of the discussion and preparation of actions for the 
> Advisory Council, but only the Advisory Council may revise, combine, or 
> abandon a draft policy.
Shouldn't recommend be part of that list of actions only the AC can take as well?
> The Advisory Council may submit a draft policy for a combined staff and 
> legal review (and should do so after significant changes to a draft 
> policy). This review will be completed within 10 days. Upon receipt of 
> the staff and legal review comments, the Advisory Council examines the 
> comments to ensure their understanding and resolve any issues that may 
> have been raised. This may cause the Advisory Council to revise, combine 
> or abandon the draft policy.
Suggest replacing the last two sentences:
...Upon receipt of the staff and legal review comments, the AC examines comments to ensure their understanding and takes appropriate action(s) to resolve any issues that may have been raised.
> 4. Community Discussion at Public Policy Meeting
> The Advisory Council presents reports on the status of all the draft 
> policies on its docket at each public policy meeting (PPM).  The list of 
> draft policies is set 20 days in advance of the PPM, and no action to 
> add, merge or abandon draft policies may be made after that point (In 
> order to provide for flexibility but insure discussion of a single draft 
> policy version at the PPM, minor revisions to draft policy text may be 
> made by the Advisory Council up until 10 days prior to the public policy 
> meeting.)
> The AC Chair designates a list of Draft Policies for discussion and 
> these are specifically listed in the Draft PPM agenda.  In each Draft 
> Policy presentation, members of the Advisory Council will present the 
> arguments for and against adoption of the Draft Policy (petitioned items 
> at the PPM are handled per PDP Section III: Petition Process) The 
> Advisory Council participates in the discussion of the draft policies at 
> the PPM, and notes merits and concerns raised in the discussion.
> Within the 30 days following the Public Policy Meeting, the Advisory 
> Council reviews all draft policies and, taking into account the 
> discussion at the public policy meeting, decides the appropriate next 
> action for each one.. Draft policies that are not abandoned remain on 
> the Advisory Council’s docket for further development.
1.	I do not believe that the AC Chair alone should determine which policies the
	AC brings to the meeting.

2.	The AC should take into account not only the discussion at the public policy
	meeting, but, also the discussions on PPML and other input received from the

These two issues require a substantial rewrite of II.4 in its entirety and I don't have proposed text at this time, though I will endeavor to develop such upon request.
> 5. Advisory Council Consensus on Recommended Draft Policy
> If the Advisory Council completes its work on a draft policy and 
> believes that the draft policy meets ARIN’s principles of Internet 
> number resource policy, it may recommend the draft policy to the 
> community.  Upon recommendation, the recommended draft policy text and a 
> current staff and legal review are published on the PPML for community 
> discussion.
> 6. Community Support on Recommended Draft Policy
> The Advisory Council seeks community support for its recommended draft 
> policies, and this support may be ascertained by a show of hands at the 
> public policy meeting or an online poll of the community after 10 days 
> prior notice provided to PPML.
Does this mean PPML is told of the poll 10 days before the poll opens, in which case, how long does the poll remain open, or, does it mean that a notice opening the poll is posted to PPML 10 days prior to the poll closing?

I would suggest that this is an area where 14 consecutive 24 hour periods would be a more useful construct than 10 days (which in this context means 10 business days).

> The Advisory Council should carefully weigh the community support shown 
> for each of the recommended draft policies.  Clear community opposition 
> is a strong indication that policy abandonment should be considered. A 
> low level of overall support without opposition for a recommend draft 
> policy suggests further discussion of the merits of the draft policy or 
> abandonment. A clear split in the community support suggests that the 
> Advisory Council should revise the draft policy to accommodate the 
> concerns raised or further explain its consideration of the matter.
This level of micromanagement of how the AC interprets community input on a policy seems ill advised at best.

Given the above paragraph, I can envision ways to claim that the AC violated the above for almost any outcome from almost any discussion other than one with overwhelming support or opposition among the entire community. Given the increasingly nuanced nature of proposal discussions over the last couple of years and that there is no reason to believe said trend will reverse itself, I believe that incorporating the above language into the PDP is asking for trouble.

> 7. Last Call
> The Advisory Council selects recommended draft policies that have the 
> support of the community and sends these policies to a last call for 
> review and discussion by the community on the PPML. The last call period 
> will be for a minimum of 10 days. The Advisory Council may decide that 
> certain draft policies require a longer last call period of review (such 
> as those that were revised based on comments received during the public 
> policy meeting). If the Advisory Council sends a draft policy different 
> than the recommended draft policy, then the Advisory Council will 
> provide an explanation for all changes to the text.
I can't decipher this after 4 readings.
> Within 30 days of the end of last call the Advisory Council will review 
> the result of last call discussion, and will determine readiness for 
> consideration by the Board of Trustees.  The Advisory Council may 
> forward a draft policy directly to the Board of Trustees only if minor, 
> non-substantive changes were made as a result of last call discussion. 
> Any other changes require that the recommended policy be sent again to 
> last call, or held on the docket as a draft policy for further 
> development.  The AC can also decide to abandon a draft policy at this 
> point.
> The results of the Advisory Council's decisions, and the reasons for
> them, are announced to the PPML. The Advisory Council forwards the 
> recommended draft policies to the Board of Trustees for adoption.
The use of the term recommended draft policies here seems ambiguous and, unless I misunderstand the use of the same term above, would mandate forwarding things to the board that may have been abandoned in the previous paragraph.
> 9. Board of Trustees Review
> The ARIN Board of Trustees reviews and evaluates each recommended draft 
> policy at their next meeting. In its review, the Board evaluates the 
> policy with respect to the Policy Development Goals as described in Part 
> One of the PDP including specifically whether the ARIN Policy 
> Development Process has been followed, and whether the policy is in 
> compliance with law and ARIN’s mission.
> The Board may adopt, reject or remand recommended policies to the 
> Advisory Council.  All rejections will include an explanation. Remands 
> will include an explanation and suggestions for further development. The 
> Board may also seek clarification from the Advisory Council without 
> remanding the recommended policy. The results of the Board's decision 
> are announced to the PPML.
> 10. Implementation
> The projected implementation date of the policy is announced at the time 
> that adoption of the policy is announced. ARIN staff updates the NRPM to 
> include the adopted policy and implements and publishes a new version of 
> the manual.
> 11.  Special Policy Actions
> 11.1 Emergency PDP
> If urgently necessary pursuant to ARIN’s mission, the Board of Trustees 
> may initiate policy by declaring an emergency and posting a draft policy 
> to the PPML for discussion for a minimum of 10 business days. The 
> Advisory Council will review the draft policy within 5 days of the end 
> of the discussion period and make a recommendation to the Board of 
> Trustees. If the Board of Trustees adopts the policy, it will be 
> presented at the next public policy meeting for reconsideration.
> 11.2  Policy Suspension
> If, after a policy has been adopted, the Board receives credible 
> information that a policy is flawed in such a way that it may cause 
> significant problems if it continues to be followed, the Board of 
> Trustees may suspend the policy and request a recommendation from the 
> Advisory Council on how to proceed. The recommendation of the Advisory 
> Council will be published for discussion on the PPML for a period of at 
> least 10 days. The Board of Trustees will review the Advisory Council's 
> recommendation and the PPML discussion. If suspended, the policy will be 
> presented at the next scheduled public policy meeting in accordance with 
> the procedures outlined in this document.
This seems somewhat backwards to me. I believe that the issue should be discussed on PPML followed by the AC making a recommendation, rather than the AC making a recommendation to be discussed on PPML then returned to the board without further involvement of the AC.
> This section provides the details of the petitions within the Policy 
> Development Process.  Petitions can be made at points where decisions 
> are made in the policy process.  Points where petitions are available 
> are depicted on the main PDP flow diagram in Appendix A.  All days in 
> the process below are business days unless otherwise specified.
We are evaluating this without the benefit of the diagram referenced above as appendix A was not attached to this document.
> 1. Petition Principles
> 1.1	Available to the community
> Any member of the community may initiate a Petition if they are 
> dissatisfied with a specific action taken by the ARIN Advisory Council 
> (AC) regarding any policy proposal or draft policy.  The petitioner does 
> not have to be located in the ARIN region or associated with an 
> organization that is a Member of ARIN; any party (including a policy 
> proposal originator) with interest in policy development matters within 
> the ARIN region may initiate a petition.
> Notwithstanding the above, ARIN Staff and ARIN Board members may not 
> initiate or be counted in support of petitions as these individuals 
> already have a formally defined role in the Policy Development Process.
I am glad to see that this was modified so as not to exclude the AC members from participating in petitions.
> 1.2	Petition Initiation and Process
> A petition may be initiated by sending an email message to the ARIN 
> Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) clearly requesting a petition against 
> a specific action and includes a statement to the community on why the 
> petition is warranted.  The ARIN Staff will confirm the validity of the 
> petition and then announce the start of the petition period on the PPML 
> mailing list.
> Until the close of the petition period, Members of the community (as 
> allowed to petition per 1.1 above) may be counted in support for an 
> existing petition by sending an email message to the PPML clearly 
> stating their support for the petition.  Only one petition will be 
> considered for given policy action; all subsequent requests to petition 
> for the same action within the petition period shall be considered as 
> support for the original petition.
> The petition shall remain open for 5 days, at which time the ARIN Staff 
> shall determine if the petition succeeds (success requires expressions 
> of petition support from at least 10 different people from 10 different 
> organizations).  A successful petition will result in a change of status 
> for the policy proposal or draft policy as specified below.
> Staff and legal reviews will be conducted and published for draft 
> policies placed on the AC docket by successful petitions.
> All draft policies successfully petitioned are presented for discussion 
> at the next PPM by an individual chosen by the petition supporters.  If 
> consensus is not achieved in determining the presenter, then the 
> President may facilitate the selection process.
> 2. Valid Petitions
> Petitions may be made regarding policy proposals or draft policies as 
> described below.
> 2.1.  Petition against Abandonment or Rejection due to out of scope
> The Advisory Council’s decision to abandon a policy proposal or draft 
> policy may be petitioned.
"...due to out of scope" should be removed. It is one of several reasons covered in the text below, not the only reason covered.
> Petitions may be initiated until 5 days following the announcement date 
> of an Advisory Council abandonment of a specific policy proposal or 
> draft policy. For sake of clarity, the “announcement date” of an action 
> shall be the publication date of the action in the ARIN AC minutes.
> For a draft policy, a successful petition will result in the draft 
> policy being placed back on the AC docket for PPML discussion and 
> presentation at the next PPM.
> For a policy proposal rejected due to being out of scope of the PDP, a 
> successful petition will result in the question of policy proposal being 
> referred the ARIN Board for consideration.
> For a policy proposal otherwise abandoned, a successful petition will 
> result in the policy proposal becoming a draft policy that will be 
> placed on the AC docket and published for discussion and review by the 
> community on the PPML.  The resulting draft policy shall be under 
> control of the AC going forward as any other draft policy and 
> subsequently may be revised or abandoned per the normal policy 
> development process.
> 2.2.  Petition for Original Version
> The Advisory Council’s decision to revise a draft policy may be petitioned.
> Petitions may be initiated anytime until 5 days following the 
> announcement date of an Advisory Council revision or publication date of 
> the draft agenda of the next Public Policy Meeting (PPM).
> A successful petition will result in the original version of the draft 
> policy being added to the AC docket for PPML discussion and presentation 
> at the next PPM.
> 2.3.  Last Call Petition
> Any member of the community may initiate a Last Call Petition if they 
> are dissatisfied with the AC’s failure to act within 30 days after a PPM 
> to send a draft policy to last call. If successful, the petition will 
> move the draft policy to last call discussion and review by the 
> community on the PPML.
> 2.4.  Board of Trustees Consideration Petition
> Any member of the community may initiate a Board of Trustees 
> Consideration Petition if they are dissatisfied with the AC’s failure to 
> act within 30 days after a last call review. If successful, this 
> petition will move the draft policy for consideration by the Board of 
> Trustees.
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111010/2e2da024/attachment.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list