<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: [arin-ppml] Encouraging public participation in the PDP</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>William, (as different from me)<BR>
<BR>
Your earlier emails talked about broader participation. I thought you meant more than those that currently review policy proposal.<BR>
Everything below talks to the process of evaluating, not a broader group of eyes.<BR>
<BR>
bd<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Bill,<BR>
<BR>
Conceptually the answer seems obvious enough: when all the informative<BR>
efforts finally convince someone to step up and attempt to<BR>
participate, DON'T SHUT THEM DOWN.<BR>
<BR>
As a member of the AC, some specific things you can personally do<BR>
towards that end include:<BR>
<BR>
1. Remove evaluation of a policy's worth from the decision to accept a<BR>
proposal as a draft policy. Focus on whether the proposal describes<BR>
"actionable" policy, not whether the action is a good one. Focus on<BR>
helping the author revise it into actionable policy if it isn't<BR>
already and then accept it as a draft policy. After accepting it as a<BR>
draft, try to help the author revise it into the closest thing to<BR>
passable policy possible while still preserving the proposal's intent.<BR>
<BR>
Let the wide community evaluate the proposal's worth. The AC can add<BR>
it's two cents when and if the draft garners the consensus to move to<BR>
last call.<BR>
<BR>
Members of the AC can add their two cents any time. But hold the group<BR>
recommendation until after the whole community has spoken.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
2. Let the proposal's author (or authors if proposals get merged)<BR>
guide the AC's changes, at least to the extent of not making changes<BR>
where the author advises that, "No, that goes against what the<BR>
proposal is trying to accomplish." The PDP gives the AC the authority<BR>
to revise draft policy. It doesn't tell you how you have to use that<BR>
authority. You have the leeway to use it in a way that includes the<BR>
author instead of excluding him.<BR>
<BR>
Of course, you actually have to accept the proposal as a draft policy<BR>
first. This idea of "we reject you but please try again" is<BR>
exclusionary BS and there's no amount of informative outreach that's<BR>
going to make it anything other than BS. If you want to "soften" a<BR>
rejection, don't issue it in the first place.<BR>
<BR>
One of the architects of Ultima Online famously said, "We want to<BR>
minimize the down side of being dead." What a stupid idea! You only<BR>
need to minimize the down side of being dead if you've unbalanced the<BR>
game against the players.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
3. Delay proposing policy. Post a PPML message saying, "We're thinking<BR>
about policy which does X. What do y'all think? Would anyone like to<BR>
take a stab at policy text?" and then wait until any discussion dies<BR>
out without anyone else proposing a policy before an AC member does.<BR>
<BR>
I hate the idea of #3. In the IRPEP model it wasn't necessary and<BR>
surely AC members are well qualified to write good policy proposals.<BR>
But in the PDP's structure, when an AC member jumps on top of a new<BR>
policy idea, it tends to drive the public out of the formative process<BR>
right away, reducing them to mere commenters on the AC's policy<BR>
instead of partners in the policy's creation.<BR>
<BR>
ICANN has public comment. Even the FCC has public comment on its<BR>
rulemaking. Do those organizations have any meaningful public<BR>
participation in their rulemaking? Hell no. Do you really want ARIN to<BR>
become the IP address version of the FCC?<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Fundamentally, though, this is a process problem. The PDP enables and<BR>
encourages a decision making process that solicits public comment but<BR>
doesn't really solicit public participation, especially for the AC<BR>
members whose natural tendency is to work behind the scenes. Unlike<BR>
the IRPEP, which had some annoying surface problems, I think the PDP<BR>
is broken at the core.<BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
Bill Herrin<BR>
<BR>
--<BR>
William D. Herrin ................ herrin@dirtside.com bill@herrin.us<BR>
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <<A HREF="http://bill.herrin.us/">http://bill.herrin.us/</A>><BR>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
PPML<BR>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>
Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>