[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy ? Revisedandforwarded to the Board

Leo Bicknell bicknell at ufp.org
Tue May 5 19:54:41 EDT 2009

In a message written on Tue, May 05, 2009 at 06:27:46PM -0500, David Farmer wrote:
> As for when to reintroduce it, we could do it now, but I know for 
> a fact that many people are really tired of the whole issue.  It 
> might be more effective to wait a while, at least one policy 
> cycle, maybe until IANA exhaustion, or maybe all the way until 
> 2013 or 2014.  By waiting until at least IANA exhaustion we 
> could insure we set the right date and not need to change it 
> again. 

I'm afraid you have missed entirely the purpose of a sunset clause,
at least in this context.

As many have pointed out, a proposal to repeal 2008-6 / 2009-1 can
be introduced at any time.  There is no need for a sunset clause
for those on the "other side of the fence" to challenge the status
quo.  There is also no reason in this context to use a sunset for
"clean up", we can clean up via policy, and should transfers no
longer be used by the community there is no significant harm to
having the text still in the NRPM.

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.
It was about setting a higher bar for that review, that there must
be consensus that this is an idea worth continuing; rather tha
consensus it is worth stopping.  Those are not opposites, but very
different bars.

I am one of the folks who originally agreed to come into the tent
in part due to the sunset clause.  Now that it has been removed I
feel as if I have been aggrieved.  Restoring the sunset will not
remove that feeling, and as much as I would like to say otherwise
I see no reason to revisit the issue at this time.

These events have left me smarter though.  I now realize sunset
provisions don't work.  The promise of a comprehensive review, on
a timetable, has already been broken.  The next time such a compromise
is presented I will not bite, I will put all my energy into opposing
the policy rather than working towards a compromise based on trust.

       Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
        PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 187 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090505/a3273413/attachment-0001.sig>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list