<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=us-ascii"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">hi all,<div><br></div><div>i'm drafting our reply-comments to the Policy vs Implementation working paper. as i've read the other comments, i have started to come to the position that we may be trying to over-legistlate this. my basic idea is this -- rather that a huge effort to develop detailed criteria for each possible Policy vs Implementation decision, what if we put a review by the AC/SO's into the process? </div><div><br></div><div>so i've drawn a flow diagram of a possible way to handle the process and would be very interested in your thoughts. the two changes to the process implied by Marika's drawing are:</div><div><br></div><div>- insert the AC/SOs in the decision-making process</div><div><br></div><div>- indicate that the process of review is iterative -- that AC/SOs get to send the decision back to the staff for review/refinement</div><div><br></div><div>i think this does a few things</div><div><br></div><div>- it's an appropriate task for AC/SOs, in their policy-management role</div><div><br></div><div>- it reduces the need for excruciating detail in criteria and (correctly, in my view) increases reliance on the judgement and wisdom of the policy-management bodies</div><div><br></div><div>- provides a chance to iteratively arrive at an approach that has broad approval and acceptance in the community.</div><div><br></div><div>the picture is attached. any thoughts? slashing criticism ("Mikey you're crazy") is fine!</div><div><br></div><div>mikey</div><div><br></div><div></div></body></html>