[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy (Using the Emergency PDP)

[Lee Howard]

As a Board member, I have some insight into the process by which the 
emergency draft policy was submitted to the community.  However, I am
not willing to discuss the Board's deliberations without checking with my
fellow Board members; I'm afraid of mischaracterizing their positions.  I
do have my own opinions, which I will share, but I have an open mind, 
and it can be changed by well-reasoned argument or correction of my
faulty memory.

The Board tries to stay out of policy matters, having created the Advisory
Council for that purpose.  Generally I am reluctant to advocate for or 
against potential policies.  In this case, there's a policy gap, where 
numbers could be better allocated as needed, per ARIN's mission.


----- Original Message ----
> From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org>
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Sent: Wednesday, March 25, 2009 4:54:33 PM
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy (Using the Emergency PDP)
> 
> In a message written on Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 07:15:32PM -0400, John Curran 
> wrote:
> >     As noted in Daniel's message, the material change made to the
> >     transfer policy by the ARIN Board is removal of the 3 year
> >     sunset clause.  It was the consensus of the Board that this did
> >     not materially improve the usefulness of the 2008-6, created
> >     uncertainty for the community, and most importantly represented
> >     a dangerous precedent of time-based expirations of policy clauses.
> 
> I find it difficult to understand how a well defined date creates
> uncertainty, 

Policy changes are changes.  
The economic ramifications of this particular policy are such that changes
could be material.  

> However, you've managed to avoid addressing the largest issue.  If
> this was such a problem that the Board could not pass a policy with
> a time-based expiration and there was an "emergency need" to get
> this right why was the Board in whole or as individuals unable to
> articulate this problem at the last meeting, on PPML, or in a private
> briefing to the AC?  

I wasn't at the last meeting, for really good personal reasons.  

I don't like to advocate for or against potential policies; I want to 
know what the community thinks without prejudicing the process.
I don't know what information was provided to the AC, because
I want to believe you guys can make sausage without my bit of tripe.


> Given the proximity of the ARIN XXIII meeting I think it would be
> irresponsible for the Board to take any action on this policy prior
> to it being discussed in a public forum.  To implement a policy a
> few weeks prior to a face to face meeting would be a slap in the
> face to the community.  Unfortunately as far as I can tell the
> process at this point requires the AC and the Board to move on the
> policy prior to the face to face meeting.

I acknowledge your concerns about the process followed.  

The process now is for ten days of review on PPML.  I would like
for the AC to hear more comments on the substance of the proposal, 
noting that the sunset clause is not the only difference from 2008-6.

Following that review, the AC will review and make a 
recommendation to  the Board of Trustees.  I look forward to that
recommendation.  

If the Board ultimately adopts, the policy is automatically up for 
review at the next meeting.  If the Board were to defer 
consideration until after the meeting, it could be in a position to
adopt the policy I will oppose implementing the policy
prior to the meeting, because the possibility of having a transfer 
policy in place for only two weeks is fraught.  However, I do
believe the Board should not wait until after the meeting to
adopt, because that would put the policy in place until the Fall
meeting, which would be unfair.


I disagree that the Board has lacked transparency.
We sent text to the Public Policy Mailing List for public consideration.
The AC should facilitate that thoughtful deliberation.


Lee