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

[David Farmer]

On 5/19/14, 21:56 , John Santos wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2014, ARIN wrote:
>
>> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12
> Anti-hijack Policy
>
>
> 11.7 Resource Allocation Guidelines
>
> [...]
>     If an organization requires more resource than stipulated by
> the minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request,
> their experimental documentation should have clearly described and
> justified why this is required.
>
> Maybe I'm being overly pedantic, but I had trouble parsing this
> sentence.  At first I thought it was missing the direct object
> or there was a strange shift of tenses, then I realized it does
> parse, but is awkward.
>
> Missing direct object:  "... their experimental documentation should have
> clearly described and justified *REASONS* (or some other equivalent word)
> why this is required."
>
> I.E. insert an noun to fix it.
>
> Tense shift:  "... their experimental documentation should [have] clearly
> describe[d] and justif*y*[ied] why this is required."
>
> I.E. strike the past tense in brackets, making the whole thing present
> tense, to make it clearer.
>
> Awkward, confusing reading: "... their experimental documentation should
> have (that is, when it was submitted) clearly described (past tense) and
> justified (past tense) why this is (present tense) required.
>
> I.E. live with it, but go "Huh?  What does this mean?" when ever someone
> reads it.
>
> Unless this is the standard way lawyers express such things, which
> would go a long way to explaining why no one understands them :-)

The sentence you have a problem with is currently in the NRPM and not 
relevant to the problem statement or part of the text being changed by 
this Recommended Draft Policy.  Previous emails in the thread from when 
this was a Draft Policy have a red-lined version of text showing both 
the original text and the changes proposed by this policy.

That being said, if the community thinks making additional changes like 
you suggest will improve the overall clarity of this policy, then we 
probably should take care of this.

In looking at the sentence in question; I think the "have" in the 
sentence is extraneous, and can deleted.  Then changing "this" to "a 
larger allocation" and the tense changes you suggest, results in;

    If an organization requires more resource than stipulated by the
    minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request,
    their experimental documentation should clearly describe and
    justify why a larger allocation is required.

Does that parse better?  Does that represent the original intent?

However, I need to know what the rest of the community thinks.

Is this something we should clean up now or is the intent of the 
original text clear enough without any changes?

If you believe the change is necessary, in your opinion is this a minor 
editorial change that the AC could make while going from Recommended 
Draft Policy to Last Call?

Thanks.


-- 
================================================
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
================================================