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

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> > 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.

The point is that if you want to force a review of the 
policy at some point in time, then say that plainly in
the policy. Don't just expire it and assume that everyone
will remember why it expires on that day. If you don't
say what you mean, then people won't debate what you
mean. Instead, they will debate what you said and you
have an uphill battle trying to convince them that you
didn't mean what you say but you said it that way because
of some environmental force which makes it roughly \
equivalent in this specific instance and context.

> 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.

Right. So the policy originally went through because people
were happy to have the wool pulled over their eyes because
it was knitted, not felt, and they could still sort of see
OK if they nodded their head up and down.

> 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".

Wherever do you get such strange ideas. As someone who was around
since before ARIN was formed, I've never heard of anyone refer
to ARIN as "doing good". More often I've seen bitter quarrels
and many, many threats of lawsuits, often caused by complete
misunderstanding. 

>  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.  

In fact there seem to be less bitter quarrels, and less threats
of lawsuits these days. ARIN is a much milder and tamer place
than it was. It still doesn't do good. ARIN just does what it
does and that works out as good for some folks, and not so
good for others.

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

At this point, I've forgotten everything about that particular
policy except that some words were deleted and some folks 
consider those words to be a sunset clause.

--Michael Dillon