[ppml] Proposed Change to AC Initial Review Period

Bill Darte billd at cait.wustl.edu
Wed Jan 25 08:57:59 EST 2006

> > Michael, do you think this would constrain authors of 
> policy proposals
> to
> > timeframes that are less convenient for them?
> Yes it would. But that is a good thing. Too often we
> see proposals which are convenient for the authors,
> i.e. knee jerk reactions to some perceived need. This
> tends to create poorly thought out proposals and also
> leads to disorganized discussions on PPML that end up
> somewhere in left field rather than focussing on 
> a real solution to a real issue.
> I believe that the AC review step was put in place
> to improve the quality of proposals under discussion.
> Now, obviously, having a fixed publication date twice
> a year for new proposals doesn't prevent authors from
> dashing off a proposal on a moments notice. But it does
> provide some time for them to reflect and withdraw the
> proposal for further editing before PPML ends up losing
> the plot in its discussions. It also allows the ARIN
> policy editor to have some two-way discussions with the
> author without time pressure in order to address things
> like fitting the new policy into the NPRM, making sure
> that all the implications of the change are covered in
> the proposal, etc.
> --Michael Dillon

Would it make more sense to leave the submission calendar flexible as is,
but require an author to submit a "pre-policy proposal" to the ppml 10 days
before submitting the formal proposal in order to solicit positive
feedback...and of course allow the industry to boo them off the proposal?

> _______________________________________________
> PPML mailing list
> PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list