[arin-ppml] The AC has a job to do with 2009-1, can you please help?

[Joe Maimon]

Owen DeLong wrote:
> 
> On Apr 3, 2009, at 4:57 PM, Jeremy H.Griffith wrote:
> 
>> On Fri, 03 Apr 2009 16:33:06 -0700, Seth Mattinen <sethm at rollernet.us>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Sure; I still OPPOSE this policy. Maybe if it is changed to:
>>>
>>> * IPv4 only. Explicitly exclude AS numbers and IPv6.
>>> * Add a sunset clause that nullifies the policy after X date, where X is
>>> reasonable and agreed upon through this process, not in the year 3000.
>>
>> +1, with a date *no later* than 12/31/2010, and:
>>
> While I am one of the strongest supporters of the sunset clause idea,
> I think that 2010 would be far too early.  IANA runout will probably occur
> somewhere in 2010-2011.  I think that we will need at least 2-3 years of
> this policy after that date for it to be at all meaningful.  Would you
> accept a 12/31/2013 date?
> 
> Thanks for your comments.
> 
> Owen

Owen,

The more I consider it, the less the idea of a sunset clause appeals.

A policy that works as intended should either obsolete itself or not 
require any obsoletion. If it does not work as intended, thats what the 
BoT emergency powers are for and a sunset would most likely be too late 
to the part anyway.

The real concern is hoarding and speculation in a market gone awry and 
uncontrollable. A sunset date could just be red flag waving in front of 
the capitalist bull.

To simply garner support is not a valid idea in my opinion, it is just a 
gimmick, one that has been successfully avoided up till this point.

As it stands, it would appear that a Sunset Clause is a poison pill.

Joe