[arin-ppml] [a-p] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy

[Cliff]

> 
> > The sunset clause was about building trust.  It was about 
> > finding a compromise that brought everyone under the same 
> > tent.  It was a promise to the unsure that there would be a 
> > top-to-bottom review.
> 
> Wait a minute, that is not a sunset clause, that is a review 
> date. A sunset clause says that something will end on that
> date, period. No review. No renewal. Nothing.

You can argue the semantics about it but in a group such as this where you can
change policy, a sunset policy is always available for review even after it
sunsets.  All the sunset clause did was say that unless ARIN takes some action
to change whatever will expire, it will expire.  When I started working, 65
was the age for full retirement.  For me it's now 66 and for all you
youngsters, it's even later.  It's like opt-in emails or opt-out.  Both work
but one is better for one group while the other is better for a second group.

I don't have a strong feeling one way or the other about the sunset clause but
in reading this group, it appears that many went along with 2008-6 because it
had a sunset clause to limit the marketing of IPv4 addresses.  I think they
all knew that as the sunset approached, the sunset clause was subject to
review and change but if no other action was taken, 2008-6 would expire.  For
that group, it was more appealing to have it stop by default rather than have
to take action to stop it.

As I said, I won't be buying or selling so I don't care but it appears to me
that those who reluctantly went along because of the sunset have been
sandbagged by 2009-1.  I don't blame them for being upset.

As a relative newbie to the group, I was impressed by the general feeling
that like Google, ARIN was run on the idea of "doing good".  As we approach
runout of IPv4, it seems to me that many of those who believe in "doing good"
(whatever your definition is) feel that the tenor of ARIN governance is
changing to more of a business model and aren't sure that's the proper way to
go.  I'd like to see more "doing good" than "business model" but I don't think
you can ignore what is going on in the real world.  2008-6 seemed to have about
the right tension between them based on the tone of the debate but 2009-1
seems to be tilting toward the business model.

Given all my ramblings above, I think the sunset clause should  remain.

Cliff


> 
> If you want some kind of policy that includes a built-in reveiew
> date then please say so in plain English and don't pussyfoot
> around with redefining the meaning of words and pompous 
> language. Instead of attaching an explanation of what you mean,
> hone the wording of the policy until it is clear and 
> and unambiguous.
> 
> > These events have left me smarter though.  I now realize 
> > sunset provisions don't work.
> 
> Yes they do. After the sunset date, the policy or law is no
> longer operative.
> 
> >  The promise of a comprehensive 
> > review, on a timetable, has already been broken.
> 
> That is not a sunset clause.
> 
> --Michael Dillon
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 


-- 
Cliff Bedore
7403 Radcliffe Dr. College Park MD 20740
cliffb at cjbsys.bdb.com http://www.bdb.com
Amateur Radio Call Sign W3CB For info on ham radio, http://www.arrl.org/