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

[Bill Darte]

Agreed.

Bill Darte
ARIN AC


-----Original Message-----
From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Owen DeLong
Sent: Thu 3/26/2009 7:47 PM
To: Bill Woodcock
Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy (Using theEmergency PDP)
 

On Mar 26, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:

>      On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, David Farmer wrote:
>> 2. Other comments about the removal of the 3 year sunset clause...
>
> Every single sentence in the NRPM could have a sunset clause,  
> doubling the
> size of the document and requiring that every part of it be constantly
> maintained.  Since the public _already has_ the capability to roll  
> back
> any part of the NRPM at any time, or to override any previously- 
> enacted
> sunset clause at any time, sunset clauses are no-ops.
>
Respectfully, I disagree.  The same argument could be made about
laws with sunset clauses, but, the same applies.  While it is true that
the community can change things and could even repeal a sunset
clause, the sunset clause creates a default action that occurs unless
the community takes action.  Additionally, repealing a policy, even
if there is strong community consensus to do so, takes time.  By
having a sunset clause in place, it clearly indicates that the intent
of the community is for the policy to be temporary and short-term
in nature, and, it creates a default action of removing the policy
after some period of time, rather than requiring additional subsequent
action by the community to do so.

Clearly the sunset clause in this policy was part of what made the
policy palatable to some portion of the community. Without it, I do
not believe there was enough support for a transfer policy to call
it consensus.
>
>
> Is there a perceived problem there?  Is there a perceived need to
> transfer IPv6 addresses or ASNs?  If so, is that more problematic than
> IPv4 addresses?
>
I do not believe there is a perceived need.  The transfer of IPv4  
addresses
is being regarded by a very large portion of the community as an  
unfortunate
necessity of the current situation, not a desirable outcome.  As such,  
expanding
the scope to include IPv6 and ASN resources is, indeed, problematic.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090326/c62b5f40/attachment.htm>