[arin-ppml] AC candidates

[Mike Burns]

Hello,

Thanks for an interesting conversation with good points on both sides.
As for me, I agree with Bill and will vote for him to join the AC.
I have been an author of a few policies here and in LACNIC, and I didn't appreciate the need to surrender the pen.
I think the AC shepherds can do their job without that power.
I remember my shepherd for Prop 151 back in 2011 working with me and basically asking if I would consent to alter the text of my proposal.
It's not the same feeling with more recent proposals, although I have no direct complaints against my stewards.

One thing that rankles is the need to give up the pen to stewards who don't support the  proposal. 
Maybe there is a better way to assign them?

Regards,
Mike


-----Original Message-----
From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> On Behalf Of William Herrin
Sent: Tuesday, August 13, 2024 2:35 PM
To: Cj Aronson <cja at daydream.com>
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] AC candidates

On Mon, Aug 12, 2024 at 12:41 PM Cj Aronson <cja at daydream.com> wrote:
> My question for you is what's the real issue you're trying to solve?

Howdy!

There are three things that concern me.

1. Policy-related activity from people other than the AC seems a lot more sparse now than in the IRPEP days. I've felt it myself. There was a typo correction a couple months back. In the IRPEP days I'd have written a proposal and followed it through. Under the PDP I said, here's a typo, have at it. Why would I bother writing it when the AC will rewrite it anyway?

To be blunt: ARIN had a far stronger claim to being a bottom-up community driven operation under the 2008 IRPEP than it does under the
2024 PDP. The character of 2024 participation, well, it's more like FCC participation which isn't bottom-up at all.

2. Death by committee. Clever or provocative proposals never really get a fair shake before the community at large because each AC member tinkers with it a little bit to "improve" it, making it more broadly palatable. Which tends to be more like the comfortable, known policy the proposal was written to change from. Carefully reshaped to fit in the box.

3. Poor writing. ARIN staff have to interpret policy text permissively, lest they be accused of making up rules which are arbitrary, capricious and hence unlawful. Too many times I've seen proposals with ambiguously written requirements defended with statements to the effect that ARIN staff will interpret them in a subjectively reasonable way. Which they are not allowed to do because such behavior is inherently capricious.

When the authors were in control of the text, it was the AC shepherd's job to stand up and say: Hey, you have some ambiguity to fix here.
What do you really want this to mean? What do you want to happen under this policy if a registrant comes along and does X? Now that the AC writes the text and advocates for the proposal, no one's really doing that job. After all, if you didn't already know it was technically sound, you wouldn't have written it that way. You see the mental trap, right? When it's really bad you get some pushback from staff and legal, but for the stuff that's just moderately bad it doesn't get fixed until sure enough, someone out there finds the loophole and makes an address grab.


Regards,
Bill Herrin

--
William Herrin
bill at herrin.us
https://bill.herrin.us/
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.