The substantive discussion about the policy *is* held in public. Behind closed doors, the AC deliberates on pretty narrow aspects, technically sound, fairness/impartiality and whether there is community support. For the former 2, it is often a summary of the points the community has brought up. The AC doesn't typically bring up points that haven't been discussed before the community, on the odd occasion that a new aspect or question does come up, it usually goes back to the community for more discussion. By the time the AC is debating whether to forward something to the board, everything has been hashed out publicly and they are weighing support. The AC minutes reflect this. Further the votes are roll call votes and the minutes reflect how AC members voted.
As for the volume of discussion -- it often speaks for itself. --h On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 3:17 PM William Herrin <b...@herrin.us> wrote: > On Fri, Oct 27, 2023 at 12:08 PM Heather Schiller > <heather.ska...@gmail.com> wrote: > > We wanted to encourage discussion so we could > > determine support, but not dominate the conversation. > > Hi Heather, > > Does holding the substantive discussion in closed meetings while the > bulk of proposals see little or no public comment on the list equate > to the AC *not* dominating the conversation? > > Does the current process actually achieve that lofty goal? > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > -- > William Herrin > b...@herrin.us > https://bill.herrin.us/ >
_______________________________________________ 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.
