In addition to the ability of the community to engage with each other at
the public policy meetings, the community has the opportunity to engage
with each other in this forum "the PPML."
While this forum is open to all who wish to participate, over the years
my observation is that the number of people who participate
interactively in this forum appears to decline and I hear from various
members of the community that they do not participate in the written
PPML forum for a number of reasons.
We often see the AC shepherds prodding for input only to often see no
replies or replies from the same dozen or so participants. This
community is much larger than those participants. Over the years, it
appears the use of mailing lists has become less comfortable for some
community participants. While I understand some of those reasons the
fact remains that we are are here to do the public work of developing IP
number resource policy and that policy should be carried out in public.
If a mailing-list isn't the right method to carry out this public work,
then we must figure out what is the right way to continue this work so
that IP number resource policy which is developed for the Internet
community in the ARIN region is open and reflective of the Internet
community that ARIN represents.
Andrew
On 10/26/24 11:14 AM, Lee Howard via ARIN-PPML wrote:
Top-posting because that's how email has worked for the last 20 years :-(
There are three kinds of meetings required in the ARIN Bylaws [1]:
* Public Policy /and /Members Meetings (biannual)
* Annual Meeting (annual)
A strong delineation between meetings is not the only way to achieve
their objectives. But we must prioritize the core objectives. All of
the laudable big tent objectives are secondary.
In my experience, largely supported by the hallway track, people don't
travel thousands of miles to ARIN Public Policy and Members meetings
to hear department reports and updates from external agencies. We
travel because we can get more conversation about proposals done in
person than in months of PPML. It would be great to hear from others
on why they come: respond to the meeting survey
<https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/ARIN54>! And/or, join this conversation!
Again, that is not to say that I'm not interested in the work on ICP-2
or RPKI or ARIN Online developments: quite the opposite! But I read
the mission statement as a prioritized list:
1. ARIN supports the operation of the Internet through the management
of Internet number resources throughout its service region;
2. coordinates the development of policies by the community for the
management of Internet Protocol number resources; and
3. advances the Internet through informational outreach.
ARIN will continue to utilize an open, transparent multi-stakeholder
process for registry policy development. [2]
The fact that Hollis and Bill managed the afternoon to get us through
the other ten proposals is amazing. At lunch, we had been through two
of twelve proposals. Based on that rate of progression, nobody thought
we would get through the rest of the draft proposals, and this was a
hot topic in the hallway. So I disagree with you that it was not an
issue: it was a clear issue, and Hollis and Bill were able to pull us
through.
This isn't the first time we've been tight for time on public policy
discussion; I seem to recall occasions where we had to move discussion
to the list. That almost happened this time, and I think "How we use
attendees' time" especially with regard to public policy is a
significant enough issue to bring it to PPML. If I'm alone among the
community in this concern, I'll settle down.
Thanks again, and always, for an excellent meeting and for
facilitating robust discussion of issues that are important to the
community.
Lee
[1] "ARIN will hold Public Policy and Members Meetings biannually and
in person when possible. ARIN’s Annual Meeting is held annually and
may coincide with an ARIN Public Policy and Members Meeting. "
https://www.arin.net/about/corporate/bylaws/
Excluding Bylaws about Board and AC meetings.
[2] https://www.arin.net/about/corporate/bylaws/, Article II, Section 2
On Friday, October 25, 2024 at 10:53:21 AM EDT, John Curran
<[email protected]> wrote:
On Oct 24, 2024, at 6:36 PM, Lee Howard via ARIN-PPML
<[email protected]> wrote:
In the spirit of offering constructive feedback, I would like to
describe what I would like to see at ARIN Public Policy meetings.
Broadly, the purpose of the Public Policy Meetings is to discuss
policy and policy proposals. The purpose of the Members Meeting is to
provide the Members with information about the operation of the
organization, especially as it will help guide governance, including
elections.
...
I think this organization will better align the work in each meeting
with the purpose of the meeting.
Lee -
Thanks for sending this! I also noted your comment at the
microphone that we should never shortchange public policy
discussions at these meetings—a view that I strongly agree with
(and observed that, thanks to Hollis and Chair Sandiford’s
excellent moderation, this was not an issue yesterday).
As you are aware, we tended to have a stronger delineation between
the Public Policy Meeting and the Members Meeting in the past, and
it is true that we could organize that way in the future.
However, I believe there are a few factors to consider before we
commit to a strict delineation –
1. In recent years, we’ve been able to “expand the tent” of ARIN
members; in other words, members are no longer limited to ISPs
and large organizations. Due to changes in membership
structure, nearly every customer is now an ARIN member. As
such, those participating in our public policy discussions are
largely ARIN members—individuals from organizations that pay
fees to support ARIN, receive services from ARIN, and can (if
they wish) become general members and participate in ARIN’s
governance.
2. We are also in an era where ARIN is engaged in many activities
beyond just number resource policy, which have the potential
for significant implications for all of ARIN’s customers. For
example, topics such as the evolution and deployment of RPKI
services, the current ICP-2 update activities, and our
cybersecurity efforts are not public policy per se, but they
have equally significant potential impacts on ARIN’s
customers. As such, these topics deserve to be informed by
feedback from our entire customer community.
3. Finally, I note that ARIN is committed to capacity development
within the ARIN community—i.e., we aim to improve the
knowledge and experience of our entire community. Over time,
this has proven to help grow our pool of volunteers who
advance to important roles such as the ARIN AC, the ASO AC,
and the ARIN Board of Trustees. Those participating in our
meetings presently gain broad exposure to all aspects of ARIN
– not just number resource policy development – and I do worry
that a strict delineation of the Public Policy Meeting and the
Members Meeting could hinder an important element of
cross-pollination that has historically bolstered leadership
development from within ARIN’s community.
To be clear, I am not saying that a clear distinction between the
two aspects of the meeting is no possible, but rather that there
are potential downsides that should be considered and balanced
against any benefits we hope to achieve by such delineation.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please [email protected] if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
