[ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

The critical difference between what Mary and what John say below...and the critical difference to the industry....I won't say the 'bottom'...is that the AC did not put forth policy...they crafted a proposal for the consideration of the industry to boo out of existence or embrace as they see fit.

I see no harm in this and in fact see that this lives up to the thought and consideration that those electing the AC as knowledgeble and thoughtful individuals..and representatives...would expect.

bd


-----Original Message-----
From: ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of John Curran
Sent: Thu 2/28/2008 12:09 AM
To: Martin Hannigan
Cc: ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
 
At 11:59 PM -0500 2/27/08, Martin Hannigan wrote:
>The AC should not be undervalued. Still, I think that the
>AC, as a whole, should reconsider putting forth policy.
>Bottom up policy shouldn't come from the middle.

As long as independent proposals get a fair shake, I
see no reason for the AC not to put forth proposals.
They are, after all, elected based on their knowledge
of addressing and related issues.

In this particular case, the ARIN Board asked the AC
to consider implications of IPv4 transfer policies and
make a proposal for discussion purposes.

/John
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy
Mailing List (PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml
Please contact the ARIN Member Services Help Desk at info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/ppml/attachments/20080228/28f81c11/attachment.html