[arin-ppml] Proposed Revision to the ARIN Policy Development Process

[John Curran]

At 2:51 PM -0400 5/9/08, Brenden Kuerbis wrote:
>I would echo the concerns voiced, real or imagined, about staff influence in the proposed PDP. The initial staff review of an originator's proposal should not unduly influence whether the proposal advances for consideration by an elected body. (Actually, while I understand the intent, I'm not sure why such a staff check is even needed at this point. Any originator who _really_ wants their proposal to be considered seriously has incentive to work with staff to get language correct, etc., right?) 

The goal of the staff review is to assist originator of the idea in formation
of a clear policy proposal.   In the past, we have had several occasions
where the originator felt that their idea was quite clearly stated, but it
turned out that the actual proposal language didn't accomplish what they
expected, due to use of terminology differently than the rest of the policy
manual or due to misunderstanding on existing practice in a given area.
This has resulted in some very confusing discussions both on the mailing
list and the public policy meeting.

I agree with the intent that staff review shouldn't be a barrier to proposal
consideration, but would also hope that a proposal originator would value
the feedback regarding how their proposal language would be construed.

/John