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

[David Farmer]

On 6 Apr 2009 Joe Maimon wrote:

> 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.

So, I personally really don't care one way or another on the 
sunset clause for a Transfer Policy, I can take it or leave it.

But lately I've hearing a lot of opposition to have a policy with a 
sunset clause.  And at least the way it is being presented, it 
isn't mealy opposition to a sunset clause on a Transfer policy, 
but a more philosophical opposition to any policy with a sunset 
clause.

Then why do we allow for a Policy Term in the Policy 
Template?   If all policies should be Permanent, which is what 
people seem to be saying, should we just eliminate this from 
the Policy Template?

>From the Policy Template;

------
Policy term 

How long will the policy remain in effect? Is it intended to be 
temporary, permanent, or renewable?
------

This seems to imply to me that at least some policies are 
intended to have a term other than forever or until otherwised 
removed by another policy action.

And, Joe I don't mean to pick on you, your message just 
happened to be the most convenient.



================================================
=======
David Farmer				     Email:	
farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota			     Phone:	612-626-
0815
2218 University Ave SE			     Cell:		
612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029		     FAX:	612-626-
1818
================================================
=======