[ppml] ARIN's Interpretation of 2003-3

[Owen DeLong]

Michael,
	I opposed 2003-3 to begin with, so, I'm probably never going to  
agree with you
on this.

	My point in posting the data about what a postal code represented  
was to
clarify exactly what they mean rather than leave your erroneous  
assertion
standing.

	As long as City, State/Province, Country are present in the record,  
I really
don't care whether ZIP is there or not, but, I think it is pretty  
clear 2003-3 as
it was adopted does not provide for the elimination of the ZIP/Postal  
code.
Apparently, ARIN agrees with me in this interpretation.

	If you want to change the policy, feel free to submit a proposal.

	What I find most disturbing in your comments is the way you  
characterize
the policy process as proposals being accepted by "the small group of  
people
who happened to be present at one of ARIN's member meetings".

	First, I think you know better than this, as you have been an active  
participant
in the ARIN policy process for several years.

	ARIN policies are not even generally discussed at ARIN member meetings.

	They are discussed at ARIN Public Policy meetings which are open to  
ARIN
members and non-members alike.

	They are not accepted or rejected at the Public Policy meetings,  
either.  The
Public Policy meetings combined with the content of the public policy  
mailing list
on the subject are used by the ARIN Advisory Council (an elected  
representative
body) to gage consensus on the policy.  If the AC determines there is  
consensus
for the policy, then it is published for last call to the PPML for  
another round of
comments.  Barring any extraordinary objections, the AC will then  
recommend
the policy be adopted by the ARIN board.  The ARIN board reviews the  
policy,
and, unless there is some extraordinary problem (legal liability  
issue, etc.)
with the policy in the board's perspective, the policy is adopted.

Owen