On 27/10/2023 17:24, John Curran wrote:
<clip>
As an relevant side-note, I will observe that there was discussion during the
PDP update
of requiring that _all_ policy proposals initially start solely as a problem
statement, and
only after that problem statement had been discussed by the community would work
on actual policy proposal text commence.
That approach was deemed too restrictive, as sometime as a change to policy
text is so
straightforward that there was no reason to deprive the community of clear
policy change
text upfront. I do not know know if the same is the case for your proposed
hobbling of the
ARIN AC members, but provide it as related background.
It is indeed too restrictive and is not a good think in my view too.
I understand the good intention of it and see no problem if an author is
wiling to seek pre community discussion about the topic for feedback,
but that should be voluntary from the author, not imposed. But in the
other hand this can lead to a heated discussion of merit sometimes and
even worst, end up being an unwanted filter.
Fernando
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 (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
