[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy

[David Farmer]

OK, there is an issue, I said I needed to hear from people ASAP, and the 
PPC was about 24 hours away.

On 6/2/14, 11:04 , David Farmer wrote:
> On 6/2/14, 09:26 , Kevin Kargel wrote:
...
>> It would be perfectly functional to say:
>>
>> “The allocation size shall be consistent with the existing ARIN minimum
>> allocation sizes, unless small allocations are intended to be
>> explicitly part of the experiment.”
>
> Are you suggesting we should also change that sentence as well?  If you are I need to know ASAP, like I said the PPC is just over 24 hours away and I have to finalize the presentation ASAP.  I would also like to hear support from a couple others on PPML before opening that sentence also to changes, as well.

Kevin, didn't respond and Martin was the only other person that did, I 
did not take that as sufficient support to open that sentence for 
changes. Also, I discussed this sentence with staff and other AC members 
prior to the PPC, no one felt it was necessary to change that sentence. 
So, I did not present any changes for that sentence at the PPC. Sorry, 
but it was a judgement call on my part and I had to go with that I had 
at the time.

Here is the issue, the PDP, Part Two says, Section 7. "Last Call" says;

    If the AC sends a Recommended Draft Policy different than the
    Recommended Draft Policy presented during the Public Policy
    Consultation, then the Advisory Council will provide a detailed
    explanation for all changes to the text and these specific changes
    must have been discussed during the community consultation.

So, I'm not sure we can make any changes to the second sentence since 
they were not discussed at the PPC.  John Curran, am I interpreting that 
correctly?

Therefore, I think the options we have are;

1. Take the text with the editorial changes in the third sentence 
presented at the PPC to Last Call leaving the second sentence as-is, or;

2. Modify the second sentence, and return this as a Recommended Draft 
Policy to the PPM in October.

Personally, I'm fine with ether option but I need to know what the 
community wants?

Thanks

On 6/6/14, 15:09 , Bill Buhler wrote:
> Seconded, must doesn't hurt the meaning, and is firmer.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leif Sawyer
> Sent: Friday, June 06, 2014 2:05 PM
> To: David Farmer; Kevin Kargel; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-hijack Policy
>
> On 6/6/14, 11:04 , David Farmer wrote:
>> [...]Given the "should" is immediately followed by a conditional "unless"
>> the intent seems sufficiently clear, the intent is to create a
>> special-case exception, and "should" seems appropriate.  Furthermore, "must" or "shall"
>> followed by "unless" seemed an awkward way to create such an exception.
>>
>> Staff generally agrees that in most cases for policy "must" is
>> preferred and it is best to avoid "should" in most cases.  However, in
>> the sentence above the intent seem clear enough and "should" seems
>> appropriate in that particular case.
>
> Unfortunately, that still has indirect parsing issues.
>
> 1. You should eat an ice-cream cone, unless you ate a taco.
>    [and then you shouldn't...but you still could]
>
> 2. You must eat an ice-cream cone, unless you ate a taco.
>     [ sorry, no ice-cream for you, taco-eater.  You get a churro instead. ]
>
>
> It's tri-state versus dual-state.  If the objective is to refine intent, then we should be most clear about our intent and diminish the grey areas where possible.


-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================