[ppml] Policy Proposal 2004-3 point of order

[Owen DeLong]

The fact that most folks would interpret it as "no" while, in fact, the
policy has always been "yes" under certain circumstances, is exactly why
the authors felt that the clarification was needed.

It is a clarification, not a change in policy, and, you have just proven
why said clarification was needed.

Owen


--On Tuesday, April 19, 2005 8:54 AM -0500 "Houle, Joseph D (Joe), CMO"
<jdhoule at att.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> Folks: 
> 
>    This may be more of a point of order, then a technical comment.
> This proposal has been positioned as a clarification not a change in
> policy.   And I expect the result of the "vote" yesterday was primarily
> driven by that assertion. 
> 
>     Let's ask a question and see how one might interpret policy under the
> old wording and new wording. 
> 
>     Question:   Will ARIN provide globally unique addresses to an entity
> that has no intention of advertising those addresses out to the Internet
> or making those addresses reachable from the Internet. 
> 
>     Old wording: I suggest most folks would interpret the wording as
> "no". 
> 
>     New wording:  I suggest most would interpret the new wording as
> "yes". 
> 
>     This sounds like a change in policy, not a clarification. 
> 
>     I'm not sure the mandate from yesterday's vote is to change the
> policy. 
> 
>             Joe Houle 
> 
>   



-- 
If it wasn't crypto-signed, it probably didn't come from me.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 186 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20050419/a8cc1069/attachment.sig>