<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;">
On Feb 15, 2014, at 3:15 PM, Martin Hannigan <<a href="mailto:hannigan@gmail.com">hannigan@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
<div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Submitted here:</div>
<div><br>
<a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ARIN_prop_203_orig.html">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/ARIN_prop_203_orig.html</a><br>
<br>
</div>
<div>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.
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>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?
<br>
<br>
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.
<br>
<br>
</div>
<div>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.
<br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John? Do I have the process correct? </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>At a high-level, a policy proposal remains such until the AC confirms that it is </div>
<div>within scope of the Policy Development Process and contains a clear statement</div>
<div>of the problem and suggested changes to number resource policy text to address </div>
<div>the problem. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Policy proposals that are determined by the AC to lack clarity are remanded back </div>
<div>to the originator along with an explanation of the areas needing improvements in </div>
<div>clarity. The proposal originator revises the Policy Proposal based on the feedback </div>
<div>received, and again offers the revised Policy Proposal for evaluation by the AC.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Once the policy proposal is clear and in scope, then it gets posted to the PPML</div>
<div>as a Draft Policy (policy proposals that have not been accepted as a Draft Policy </div>
<div>after 60 days may also be petitioned to Draft Policy status)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Top priority at this point is a clear in-scope problem statement and suggested </div>
<div>changes to existing policy text. I will note that the policy development process</div>
<div>is used for number resource policy and not ARIN business practices or services; </div>
<div>the latter should be submitted to the ARIN consultation and suggestion process</div>
<div>as they come under the fiduciary responsibilities of the ARIN Board of Trustees.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks!</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>ARIN</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>