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

[Robert Bonomi]

> Date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 15:25:03 -0700
> From: "Michael K. Smith - Adhost" <mksmith at adhost.com>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-4 - Staff Assessment
>
> > 
> > I really liked Michael's Dillon's editorial suggestions from earlier, that
> > I'll
> > summarize, and maybe change slightly here;
> > 
> > 1. Find a different name for it, "Caribbean Region", at least by itself,
> > doesn't
> > work, maybe "Caribbean Region and assorted islands".
> > 
> > 2. Add the other assorted islands that are part of the ARIN Region, proba
> bly
> > Antarctica too.  Basically anything not US and Canada.  If this is justif
> ied
> > for
> > the Caribbean, it is justified for these other islands and Antarctica too.
> > 
> How about rolling up (1) and (2) into "territories in the ARIN region not s
> pecifically part of the Continental United States and Canada?
>
> > 
> > So back to what to call this thing;  I'm really not sure what the term is
>  we
> > are
> > talking about here, but it includes factors of Remoteness, Sparsity of
> > Population, and Sparsity of Infrastructure. It is really the product of t
> he
> > all
> > these factors.  It is one of those things where I think you know it when 
> you
> > see it, but you really can't explain it.  I haven't found a name for it, 
> but
> > maybe
> > you could call it an Internet Desert, just a thought, but it doesn't work
>  for
> > the
> > title of this policy.
> > 
>
> Non-continental ARIN participants?
>

Doesn't _that_ include somebody in ....
  Hawaii, 
  Prince Edward Island, 
  Nova Scotia, 
  Catalina Island,
  Chincoteague Island, 
  Florida Keys, 
  Puerto Rico, 
  U.S. virgin Islands,
  Governor's Island,
  etc.

<*evil* grin>


There are only four viable ways to make a policy like this:
  1) explicitly list all the geopolitical divisions that are to be covered 
     by the policy
  2) explicitly list all the geopolitical divisions that are *NOT* to be 
     covered by the policy
  3) provide a sufficiently precise/detailed 'rule' to identify the desired
     areas of coverage.
  4) give staff "discretion' to make exceptions "as they deem appropriate".


I favor "codification" (i.e. 'in the NPRM') of the 4th option -- with some
language describing the 'intent' of the policy, for non-binding guidance.