COMMENTS ON YOUR MEMORANDUM OF 2 APRIL, REVITALIZATION OF PNIOS

• Document Type: CREST
• Collection: General CIA Records
• Document Number (FOIA) /ESDN (CREST): CIA-RDP82R00129R000100070020-1
• Release Decision: RIPPUB
• Original Classification: S
• Document Page Count: 3
• Document Creation Date: December 14, 2016
• Document Release Date: June 27, 2003
• Sequence Number: 20
• Publication Date: April 18, 1963
• Content Type: MF

?6 C" c
Approved f%pr Release 2003/07 tf3 b 7 -RDP82R0 9R000100070020-1
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY
OFFICE OF CENTRAL REFERENCE
18 April 1963
25X1A
MEMORANDUM FOR:
SUBJECT: Comments on your Memorandum of 2 April,
"Revitalization of PNIOs"
1. At your suggestion, I have prepared this extension of the informal
comments that I passed to you a week ago.
2. The receipt of your "Sample PNIOs"" confirms my earlier reaction
that the use of the present DCID 1/2, and particularly the designation
"comprehensive, " will in some measure defeat the purpose you have in
=_Yind. As is evident from your memo, and also from an inspection of
the contents of the two lists (DCID 1/2 and 1/3), the distinction between
the two is not "comprehensive" and "priority" but rather "basic and
continuing" as compared with "current." Further confusion arises
from the fact that the second list is more "comprehensive" (although
the individual items are admittedly more specific) than the first. On the
other hand, items of the highest "priority" are contained in both lists.
I think that the concept of dividing the lists is good, but, in view of the
history of DCID 1/2, it may be difficult to convey the idea that these
objectives have the same degree of "priority" as many of the items in
the list that is so designated, the real difference being that between
"continuing" and ""current."
3. If it is not possible, within the intent of NSCID No. 1, to provide
DCID 1/2 with a new title descriptive of its proposed content, it might be
better to drop this approach and divide DCID 1/3 into two lists, one
"continuing or basic" and the other "current." They could both then have
the caption "priority" which they, in fact, are. The introductory material
should then be revised to describe the differing purposes of the two lists.
If this were done, it seems to me it would still be desirable to return to
DCID 1/2 and determine whether a more meaningful directive can be
drafted to meet the broad purposes intended in NSCID No. 1. In the package
you propose there will apparently still remain legitimate areas of "normal"
.esearca and collection which derive their authority from this DCID,
inadequate as it may be.
P. T
g9C, tlll
L`v
Excledcd t"c=a
Approved For Release 2003/07/03 : CIA-RDP82R00129R000100070020-1
 Approved-Epr Release 2003/07103 C A?RDP82R0 19R000100070020-1
4. In redrafting your "basic" list, whether in a separate DCID or
not, you will wish- to provide some introductory statements to distinguish
it from the "current" list and to provide guidance in its use for the
allocation of resources. Although it appears to me to be broad enough
to cover most of the priority problems of a continuing nature, it may
require further elaboration to meet the planning requirements of activities
such as NSA.
5. As you indicate, any division of the lists introduces some artificial
aspects. I anticipate that, in your proposed arrangement, questions will
immediately arise as to the relative priority of "First Priority" items in
Lists A and B. There is a danger that the effect of this division will
bring a result the opposite of that intended and that it will be concluded
that all non-Bloc items are of a lower order of priority than Bloc items.
... e ely by inspection it is apparent that the items in List B. I. do not
have the same degree of urgency as those in List A. I. We thus again have
in fact four categories, plus a fifth, those of continuing interest. Since
none of these categories is defined, those who through the years have
pressed for finer definitions will want to know how the various categories
differ from each other, especially in terms of the relative allocation of
effort.
6. A committee, as you propose, is essential. To be really useful
.a resolving the problems raised by the several agencies, it must be more
.Brun the "keeper of the lists." It must bridge the gap which now exists
between PNIOs and their elaboration and implementation in the areas of
collection, research, and production. Your statement of mission, if you
can make it stick, seems adequate for this purpose. Such a committee
would need to be thoroughly familiar with the total community operation
(as implied in your statement of mission and functions) and provide the
USIB with guidance in the allocation of resources in relation to priority
needs. Thus conceived, of course, the committee would do much more
than revise the list of PNIOs or CNIOs on a semi-annual basis. Moreover,
its representation would need to be broader than implied in your introductory
notes where you suggest that it consist of representatives of the estimative
offices of the several agencies. If the aforementioned gap is to be filled,
representation will also be needed from offices concerned with the
implementation of the PNIOs in the areas of research and collection.
Some of this, as you suggest, can be accomplished on an ad hoc basis.
Approved For Release 2003/07/03 : CIA-RDP82R00129R000100070020-1
 Approved .pr Release 2003/b/3?.+CJA-RDP82ROM"29R000100070020-1
7. Your proposal for revisions of the "current" list at si:x-motth
intervals would only partly compensate for the rapid obsolescence