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

[William Herrin]

On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 9:40 AM, Joe Maimon <jmaimon at chl.com> wrote:
> 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.

Joe,

Once we've seen how 2008-6 works, prevailing opinion in this group
will fall into one of several ranges:

1. Consensus to continue the policy.
2. Consensus to change the policy.
3. Consensus to abandon the policy.
4. No consensus to take action.

Now, it's always harder to build a consensus for something than it is
to take no action. So for any random proposal the most probable result
is #4: no consensus.

With a sunset clause, the original policy goes away absent #1.
Without it, only #2 or #3 removes it, and then only with the AC's
recommendation and board's approval.


The transfer proposals before 2008-6 lacked a sunset clause. Folks
like myself sat on the sidelines and said, "Yeah, a transfer policy is
probably a good idea but this ain't it." And there weren't enough
folks favoring each transfer policy to achieve consensus.

The genius of proposal 2008-6 is that the author said, "Okay, give it
a chance. We'll make sure up front that if it turns out badly, the
policy won't stick around." That addition was enough to put it over
the top where the ones before had failed.

Stripping the sunset strips the consensus that found 2008-6 acceptable.

And the support for 2009-1 is markedly thin on the ground.


Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004