<div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Apr 28, 2011 at 11:47 AM, John Curran <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div><div></div><div class="h5">On Apr 28, 2011, at 2:35 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Apr 28, 2011, at 11:10 AM, Leo Bicknell <<a href="mailto:bicknell@ufp.org">bicknell@ufp.org</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Let me offer a middle ground. If we don't want staff making a<br>
>> policy proposal directly, could we at least get staff directly<br>
>> involved in having conversations about policy on PPML? Do we really<br>
>> have to wait for a twice a year report to learn from their experiences?<br>
><br>
> +1<br>
<br>
</div></div>To be clear, is this a suggest for staff to provide more realtime input<br>
with respect solely to implementation issues with existing and proposed<br>
policies, or also with respect to policy intention and goals?<br>
<br>
e.g. "If 20xx-n had its second sentence reworded to match the existing<br>
critical infrastructure definition, that would the clearer"<br>
<br>
or also "If 20xx-n included World of Warcraft servers in the definition of<br>
critical infrastructure, that might better serve the community..<br>
(and certainly would make some of us happy)"<br>
<br>
Just trying to understand the intent here...<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>IMO we want #1 for sure. Something along these lines may also be helpful: "If 20xx-n included <foo> servers in the definition of critical infrastructure, that would address the needs of a number of companies providing <bar> service who've been unable to <mumble> under current policy." We sometimes get feedback along those lines from the mic at the public policy meetings, but only in response to very specific questions. Making it easier for staff to speak up when they feel they could provide useful input on PPML would be a good thing IMO.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Scott</div></div>