[ARIN-Suggestions] Response and Closure of ACSP 2019.9: PDP Improvements

[ARIN]

On 2 May, we received a new suggestion, numbered 2019.9 upon confirmed 
receipt, that recommended edits and clarifications to the Petitions 
section of the Policy Development Process (PDP) in order to make the 
process clearer and more fair.   After internal review, we have notified 
the author that we will refer this suggestion to the Board for 
consideration. The full text of the suggestion and our response to the 
author are available below, or at:

https://www.arin.net/vault/participate/acsp/suggestions/2019-9.html

Regards,


Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)

***
Description:

PDP text for the petition process is not clear and need to be improved. 
In view of my experience in the recent petition, I see several issues:

1) The text doesn't mention if is natural or working days. The staff is 
interpreting it as natural days, and in that case it is extremely short, 
considering that the process need to be followed by people not just from 
the ARIN service region. In our case, was in the middle of a weekend and 
co-author country holidays. I will say that it should be either 7 or 
even 10 natural days (for each time frame), because it will be difficult 
to seeks "working days" in all the countries. I understand that people 
just need to say, if they support the petition "I support it", but this 
is not something that people do over the weekend, or even in the middle 
of the week they will give priority to respond within the deadline. What 
about vacation periods, which may be longer than 7 days. Should an 
exception deadline be considered at staff discretion if it happens 
within eastern, summer holidays, xmas, etc. ?

2) It is not clear either if the 5 days are for starting the petition or 
from start-to-end. It looks like it is 5 days to start the petition, 
then 5 days to get the support. Should be clearer.

3) It should be stated that co-authors also count for the number of 
petitioners, as they are community members.

4) I understand that in some cases, several participants from a single 
organization should be counted only as one, to prevent a single 
organization to make its own petition happening, but this should be 
enforced only in those cases. Otherwise, the PDP is for community 
members, and even within a single organization, there are different 
views, so all them should count.

5) Some community participants may not be affiliated, or they don't want 
to speak on behalf of its employeer (or not allowed to). So asking for 
their affiliation, except in the case indicated 4), should not be needed.

Value to Community: Ensuring that the process is well understood and fair.

Timeframe: Not specified

***

Response:

Thank you for your suggestion, numbered 2019.9 upon confirmed receipt.

As we understand it, this suggestion recommends edits and clarifications 
to the Petitions section of the Policy Development Process (PDP) in 
order to make the process clearer and more fair.

Given that changes to the PDP are made per direction of the ARIN Board 
of Trustees, this suggestion will be provided to the ARIN Board Chair, 
and it will be reviewed during the next periodic update to the PDP.

Thank you for your participation in the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion 
Process.  This suggestion is now closed.