[ppml] Policy Proposal writing
At 15:27 +0100 10/5/06, Michael.Dillon at btradianz.com wrote:
>Why are policy writers so concerned with the minutiae
>of what ARIN must do? We are supposed to be writing
>ARIN policies, not writing ARIN's process manual.
(Maybe) Because proposals keep getting bounced at open meetings
for not being specific enough.
>The gist of this policy seems to be:
> For each address range which ARIN has issued,
> ARIN will publish the list of allowed originating
> ASes as supplied by the authorized user for each
> netblock within that range. ARIN will form a public
> working group to produce a document specifying the
> requirements, and implementation details at the end
> of 6 months after this policy is ratified by the board
> of trustees.
>What more needs to be said in the NPRM?
I think that if you gave that as a "mission statement" to a
WG, the result might not be what is intended. I believe
the intention is to prepare certificates with all this stuff,
the above makes it seem that entries in WhoIs could be the
>The technical details can be hashed out on a WG mailing
>list. Whatever reaches consensus within 6 months goes
>into the document and the WG dissolves. Then staff
>implement it. If anything in that document needs a
>policy change to make it so, then you can bet that it
>WILL be brought to our attention. The Trustees can be
>trusted to see to that.
Of course, I am assuming the WG is not carrying any other
context other than the statement above. The WG can
be carefully selected to bring in the needed context
though, but then we get towards "subjective" selection
which might cause heartburn.
The above suggestion is pretty close to what I suggested
at the open mic a year ago (the first "an attendee"):
I suppose it's a matter of "do we set up coarse proposals that
get refined later" or "do we refine proposals and pass the final
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
Secrets of Success #107: Why arrive at 7am for the good parking space?
Come in at 11am while the early birds drive out to lunch.