[arin-ppml] Proposal 204 Submitted, Registry Accuracy Proposal

[Martin Hannigan]

On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Submitted here:
>
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ARIN_prop_203_orig.html
>
> I believe that we need to make a few more changes before the AC meeting to
> insure that all of the i's are dotted and t's are crossed. I didn't realize
> that ARIN no longer posts notice that a proposal has been submitted.
>
> In rummaging through the new PDP as a result, I see a few things are
> different. It looks like Part 2 is relevant for submissions and getting to
> the "evaluation" stage which I would believe to be at the next scheduled AC
> call?
>
> Up until then, it also appears that  Part Two Section 1 "The assigned AC
> members and ARIN staff will work with the originator as described below to
> prepare the Policy Proposal for evaluation by the AC." is a catch all to
> insure that there are no problems in reaching Part Two Section 2, unless of
> course the author of a proposal doesn't respond to the shepherds.
>
> There are some other slightly confusing process in the PDP around problem
> statements, existing policy and the like which I imagine are determined to
> exist or not exist through the process in Part Two Section1 is carried out.
>
> John? Do I have the process correct?
>
>
> At a high-level, a policy proposal remains such until the AC confirms that
> it is
> within scope of the Policy Development Process and contains a clear
> statement
> of the problem and suggested changes to number resource policy text to
> address
> the problem.

Thanks.



> Policy proposals that are determined by the AC to lack clarity are remanded
> back
> to the originator along with an explanation of the areas needing
> improvements in
> clarity. The proposal originator revises the Policy Proposal based on the
> feedback
> received, and again offers the revised Policy Proposal for evaluation by the
> AC.


So my intepretation of Part 2 Section 1 is correct then?



>
> Once the policy proposal is clear and in scope, then it gets posted to the
> PPML
> as a Draft Policy (policy proposals that have not been accepted as a Draft
> Policy
> after 60 days may also be petitioned to Draft Policy status)
>
> Top priority at this point is a clear in-scope problem statement and
> suggested
> changes to existing policy text.

Thanks. I'll double check that.

>I will note that the policy development
> process
> is used for number resource policy and not ARIN business practices or
> services;
> the latter should be submitted to the ARIN consultation and suggestion
> process
> as they come under the fiduciary responsibilities of the ARIN Board of
> Trustees.


I think it belongs in policy. I left the section numbers alone since I
would leave where in the NRPM it might go  (as it has been
historically) up to "you".

I agree, should try and separate business practice from desired policy
implications. I'm not totally clear if that's the case here, but I
would imagine the AC could accomplish that if they wanted to.

Best,

-M<