[arin-ppml] 2011-1 not adopted Was:Re: Board Adopts Draft Policies

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 13, 2012, at 7:28 AM, Chris Grundemann wrote:

> On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 23:34, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
>> I personally like the part where Scott Leibrand stands up after most
>> AC meetings and says, "These were the most telling factors for me in
>> each of the drafts we considered and that's why I voted as I did." If
>> I was king for a day, his voice wouldn't be a lonely one.
> 
> Scott does indeed do a wonderful job elucidating his arguments. Many
> AC members believe that their job is to judge community consensus,
> rather than to drive it. Others believe that since they get a vote and
> get to speak their mind in the AC meeting proceeding each vote, that
> also posting arguments to PPML is over-reaching. As such, those
> members choose not to post verbosely on PPML. All AC members
> contribute during our meetings and the AC meeting minutes are always
> available for your review:
> https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/index.html.
> 

As most know, I both make my opinions known on PPML and vote in the
AC meetings.

What may or may not be obvious is that what I state on PPML is not
necessarily in line with how I vote as a member of the AC.

On PPML, I speak my mind as a member of the community and argue
my own opinion on the matter.

When it comes time to vote as a member of the AC, it's more complicated.
My vote as a member of the AC is intended to represent the community
consensus and the community's interests (usually aligned, but, not always).
My own personal feelings about the proposal get little, if any weight in
my decision when it comes to my vote on the proposal as an AC member.

Anyone who chooses to review my voting record will see that I have,
in fact, voted in favor of proposals I have opposed personally and
that I have voted against proposals that I have personally supported
in the past.

Usually, I will explain my vote to the community when I believe there
is value to doing so. If the community feels I should explain my votes
more consistently or more often, I am certainly open to doing so.

Perhaps it would be good for ARIN to conduct a survey asking the
community if they generally would prefer the individual members
of the AC to be more expressive of their views during the policy
development process and/or whether they would like to see all AC
members explain their votes in a manner similar to what Scott
usually does.

Owen