[arin-ppml] 2008-3 Support

[John Osmon]

[...]
> Here's how I conceive of the choice. We can 1) try to forge a general
> policy governing merit claims, by creating an elaborate set of
> organizational status classifications and merit assignment criteria; or
> 2) establish a uniform but liberal set of rules governing access, charge
> appropriate fees to deter inefficient or wasteful use, and let merit
> claimants seek funding support from foundations, the government, their
> members, industry, etc. when they are unable to afford those fees. That
> is, the assessment of merit claims should be delegated to funders (who
> are more in the business of evaluating the merit of applicants) and not
> hardwired into (or carved out of) allocation policy.

I like the idea of community networks.  That doesn't stop me from
saying that I like Option 2) best of the two proposed...

Policies are *supposed* to be general.  Staff can kick things up
to the board that are important enough to warrant exceptions.  That's
why we *have* boards -- to determine when we need to break the rules
for the benefit of all.

I want my "rule of law" to be based on the *intent* of the law -- not
the *letter* of the law.

I also want a pony.

Chalk me up for option 2.