[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Review Process

[Owen DeLong]

>>
>> e. when a route to the block has not been present in the DFZ for at
>> least 3 months.
>
> e. Does *NOT* mean an address block is not in use.  As has been
> re-iterated many times, there are many semi-private networks which
> require non-colliding addresses and are not under the control of
> a single entity, so RFC1918 addresses are not appropriate.
>
I am neutral on whether or not to add clauses d and e to the proposal,
however, I'd like to point out that just adding them to the text as  
indicated
is not any form of claim that they by themselves constitute non-use
of the space.  Merely that the could be considered cause for review
of whether the space is in compliance with policies or not.

Personally, I think the without cause phrasing in (c.) adequately
addresses the issue vs. adding the proposed clauses (d) and (e),
but, if people feel that would be a better way to write the policy,
I don't see it as harmful to the policy intent.

(d) was about lame in-addr delegation for those who may not remember.

Owen