+1 to Fernando’s comments.
Regards, Mike From: ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2024 10:14 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Public Policy meeting agenda I am on this for a couple of years and still often hear colleagues talking about the reasons for low participation on Policy Forums. Some blame some discussions are discouraging while other mention email list format. One thing to take in consideration is that these topics are not trivial and requires a minimal amount of time and patience dedicated to read, understand and write. I see that those who don't participate is simply because they don't want or don't consider this topic of any priority in their lives and don't put up the necessary time. I think mailing-list continues to be the best method for the discussions to happen as it is well established for decades, everything gets recorded on both list archives and people's mailboxes and keeps an organized record of everything that has happened to be easily consulted over time. Gen Z and Millennials in general often is seen to resist to email and wish to use messaging applications that not only make records go missing quiet easily but also reduce the quality of the discussion and taking off it important details. Best regards Fernando On 29/10/2024 13:44, Andrew Dul via ARIN-PPML wrote: 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 <mailto:[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: On Oct 24, 2024, at 6:36 PM, Lee Howard via ARIN-PPML <mailto:[email protected]> <[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] <mailto:[email protected]> ). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> ). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] <mailto:[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.
