[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-4 - Staff Assessment

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> I guess the important question is, does anyone believe that 
> the population and economic rationale used to justify this 
> policy wouldn't apply equally to these islands just as much, 
> if not more, than the Caribbean Region? 

> There are probably even regions of the US and Canada that 
> could qualify, the near Arctic for instance,

I suggest that the AC consider rewording this policy to refer
to "Sparsely Populated Regions" rather than the Caribbean. Also
include a clause that states:

    X.1) Sparsely Populated Regions referred to in section X
    of the policy, include the following:

      X.1.1) The countries A, B, C and D,
      X.1.2) The territories G and H

Then at some future time you could add lines like:
      
      X.1.3) Alaska outside the city and borough of Juneau
      X.1.4) Nunavut Territory
      X.1.5) Labrador Peninsula defined as Labrador Region, NF,
             and the regions Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean, Côte-Nord, 
             and Nord-du-Québec in the province of Québec
      X.1.6) Mountainous areas west of the Great Plains which
             lie more than 150 km from an incorporated city
             whose population is over 250,000 as of the 
             U.S census of 2000 or the Canadian census of 2001

Leaving aside the suggested definitions of additional territory,
I don't think that this would materially change the meaning and
effect of the policy. And being able to discuss adding a sentence
or two to an existing policy, might make things easier in the
future.

--Michael Dillon

P.S. In favor of this policy.