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 :-) -- John Santos Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc. 781-861-0670 ext 539 _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
