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

[John Santos]

On Mon, 6 Apr 2009, David Farmer wrote:

> 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.

I'm seeing a lot of posts, but most are from a small number of
people.  All the opposition seems to come from people in favor of
a transfer policy without a sunset.

I'm not hearing any opposition to a sunset clause from those who
oppose a transfer policy.  You would think at least some in hard
opposition would also not want a transfer clause because it would
make a transfer policy more palatable to those on the fence.

I personally support a sunset clause on something this controversial.

Are people sitting on the fence likely to *oppose* continuation
of the policy if it works well?  (If so, they weren't truly on
the fence.)  If it works well, there should be no problem gaining
a consensus to continue it when it comes up for review.


> 
> 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.

Agreed.  No one in favor of a transfer policy but opposed to a
sunset clause has explained why they think sunset clauses are
a good think in principle but would be a monkey wrench in IP
transfers.



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

-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539