[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-4 - Staff Assessment
owen at delong.com
Thu Oct 9 12:44:41 EDT 2008
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?
More information about the ARIN-PPML