[arin-ppml] AC Candidates (Chris Tacit)

[Owen DeLong]

> On Oct 27, 2023, at 19:12, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 6:36 PM Heather Schiller
> <heather.skanks at gmail.com> wrote:
>> The substantive discussion about the policy is held in public.
>> Behind closed doors, the AC deliberates on pretty narrow
>> aspects, technically sound, fairness/impartiality and whether
> 
> Hi Heather,
> 
> If the AC meetings are truly that dry, ARIN can win some -easy-
> brownie points by holding them on a recorded, open call.

In my experience they aren’t that dry, but the policy relevant discussions are.

By holding the evolutions in a closed meeting, AC members are free to speak collegially in
a manner more candid that would be appropriate if it was to be open to the general
public. However, none of what goes on behind those closed doors involves any
sort of collusion against the will of the community and I think that the long term
record of the AC, the published roll-call votes, and the relatively low rate of
petitions reflects that.

> I thought the point of a closed meeting was so the folks on the AC
> would be free to say what they think, but if the meetings are as dry
> as all that then there's no need.

Evaluation of comments by various members of the public can be very candid in some
cases. Limiting that to comments fit for general public consumption would place an
additional burden and decrease the quality of discussion, IMHO.

Think about the difference in how you would speak to a group of 15 friends in your
own home about what you saw at the ARIN meeting vs. how you would describe
it at the microphone of another public event.

Even though the content is limited to the same public topics, the way in which
you would approach the discussion would likely be substantially different.

Owen