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

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 6, 2009, at 9:54 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

> David:
> Another way of interpreting your useful research on policy term is  
> that, in most cases, policies are immediate in effect and unlimited  
> in duration.
>
>>> 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.
>
> What you're hearing from me is not a general opposition to having  
> sunsets; they can be appropriate in certain circumstances.
>
> But a sunset on a transfer policy is disastrous. You are dealing  
> with economic incentives fundamental to the operation of the  
> industry and in a very sensitive transitional period; operators have  
> to know what the ground rules are with respect to their ability to  
> acquire and dispose of addresses during the migration/transitional  
> period. The date for a sunset cannot be anything but utterly  
> arbitrary, since we don't know how long this transition will take.  
> The idea of lurching from one system to another and possibly back  
> again based on an arbitrary, pre-specified date doesn't make any  
> sense to me.
>
Re-evaluating this in 3 years is a perfectly reasonable protection to
build in in this case. In 2 years, if it looks like another year isn't  
long
enough and the transfer policy is doing what it needs to do, it should
not be difficult at all to get consensus around extending or eliminating
the sunset.

As such, given that absent a sunset, the community seems nearly
50/50 divided on whether a liberalized transfer policy should exist
at all, I really don't see that a sunset is harmful in this case. I  
would
think that the pro-transfer group would welcome it as a compromise
which creates a much greater level of community support to try this
policy.

On the other hand, looking at it from the anti-transfer group's
perspective, given that the community is very nearly 50/50, it
will be just as hard to abandon a potentially failed transfer policy
(after all, there is no reason to believe that the definition of failed
is universal in this case) as it was to get consensus around
creating it in the first place.

These opinions are strictly my own and I am sure there are
many on the AC who do not agree with me.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 2105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090406/a0b616d1/attachment.p7s>