[ppml] the "other" policy proposals

[Dave Mohler]

I agree.  Would policy be an appropriate place to indicate expectated
conditions to terminate a mechanism the staff has determined to be
"unpopular" (e.g. minimum duration of notice; availability of
alternative mechanism, perhaps how to determine "unpopularity", BoT
approval)?  

Also, would there be any appropriate policy to express expectations for
staff to implement new mechanisms (e.g. "best practices", avoiding
proliferation of too many ways to do the same thing, BoT approval)?

-- David A. Mohler

> -----Original Message-----
> From: ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf
Of
> michael.dillon at bt.com
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2007 4:21 AM
> To: ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [ppml] the "other" policy proposals
> 
> > In considering adding support for more solutions, I'd urge some
> > restraint; ensuring that the new solution meets needs that can't
> > reasonably be met by existing solutions.  (To be clear, I'm not
> > suggesting these proposals don't meet such needs.)  The risk is that
> > each solution added becomes one more solution whose removal "will be
> > considerably more controversial" (from Bill Woodcock's
> > message) at some
> > point in the future, compounding the support effort required
> > by the ARIN
> > staff.
> 
> Another good reason for removing these details entirely from the
> policies. That way, if ARIN staff determine that a mechanism is
> unpopular, they can simply stop doing it. With signoff from the BoT of
> course.
> 
> Do you recall the long and protracted discussion about the design of
the
> new templates?
> 
> Of course you don't because ARIN staff just did it.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> 
> _______________________________________________
> This message sent to you through the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
> (PPML at arin.net).
> Manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/ppml