On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 1:55 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com> wrote: > As shepherd, I would be inclined to revise the policy statement so that it > inserts e) and renumbers the current e) to f), rather than replacing the > entire section as currently worded. Basically that would just mean > promoting "b. General Comments:" to become the policy text. > > Bill, would that be sufficient for you, given the desire (for clarity) to > have all the explicit cases listed first and the catchall at the end?
Hi Scott, I think there's sound reasoning for the catchall to come last. Maybe ask staff for advice? Reordering is generally a bad thing for this sort of document, but every rule has its exceptions. If staff concurs that reordering here is the optimal choice, I'd be satisfied. Maybe there's a third way we're not seeing, like retiring e, adding the new element as f, and then re-inserting the catchall some other way, point g or as a sentence that follows the ordered list. Regards, Bill -- William Herrin ................ her...@dirtside.com b...@herrin.us Owner, Dirtside Systems ......... Web: <http://www.dirtside.com/> _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
