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

[Owen DeLong]

On Oct 9, 2008, at 7:35 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:

>> 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
FYI, Juneau is more sparsely populated than much of Jamaica
and I would think that including Fairbanks or Anchorage would
be about like including San Francisco while excluding the rest
of urban California.
>
>      X.1.4) Nunavut Territory

What about Yukon, Northwest Territories, and PEI which are
nearly as sparse?
>
>      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

The proper abbreviation for Newfoundland is NL.

>
>      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
>
Why not just define it as any area more than 100km from an
incorporated city or metropolitan area with a population greater
than 250,000 and eliminate ALL of the above oddities?

Owen