[ppml] New ARIN Sub-region Policy Proposal (Rural-America)

[J Bacher]

> >>This is an example of a poorly thought out
> >>policy proposal. It doesn't conform to the
>
> >This is an example of determining how many people will accept a
> >double-standard when there ought not be.
>
> >John's analogy is excellent.
>
>ARIN has always had policies that apply
>to only a subset of the organizations in the
>ARIN region. For instance, some policies
>are directed at ISPs and others at end users.

The use of ISP (allocator) vs end user (final recipient) identifies how the 
space is being used than it does providing greater restrictions on one 
group over the other.  It is not politically biased.  It is not 
geographically biased.  It is not cost  or profit biased.  Neither body is 
not restricted and may convert to the other body.

If this is not the time or day for the argument to provide portable space 
for low population areas based upon the availability of connection 
resources, I fail to see how this can become the time or day to reduce the 
allocation requirement based upon availability of connection resources.

Reading the extensive arguments against this proposal, I'm seeing the 
repeating theme to be not that the policy shouldn't be considered but that 
it should be considered with consistency within the ARIN membership -- even 
if only the African membership benefits.  Don't put forth a policy for a 
subset of the membership to the exclusion of the rest.