[ppml] Restrictions on transferor deaggregation in 2008-2: IPv4Transfer Policy Proposal

[Stephen Sprunk]

Thus spake "Bill Darte" <BillD at cait.wustl.edu>
> Policy reliance upon [ARIN staff] to 'do the right thing' is not an
> issue of whether they have the talent and ability to do it, but rather
> is it appropriate to express policy in that generalized way.
>
> The risk of being too expressive in giving guidance on how they may do
> these the task runs the risk of missing something necessary or bleeding
> over into operations...whereas being to general runs the risk of lack of
> transparency and perceived fairness.

I agree, and it's a tough balancing act.  In addition to your points, it's 
been expressed in the past that being too general makes it difficult for 
staff to determine the intent of the policy or deny a request that's 
questionable.  A perfect example would be the vague "justification" for IPv6 
SWIPs and PI blocks shorter than /48: staff has to approve all requests 
because they don't have any policy basis to deny any, which was not the 
intent.

S

Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking