<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Mar 31, 2008, at 12:00 PM, Member Services wrote:</div><br><blockquote type="cite">To register your opinion, simply click the link next to the answer that most<br>represents your standing on the issue. You must make your opinion known by<br>12:00:00 ET on Thursday, 3 April 2008.<br></blockquote><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">Topic:<br>Q1: Do you feel a transfer proposal to change the current transfer policy should exist?</font></blockquote></div><br><div><blockquote type="cite"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">Q2: Do you feel that you have been informed enough on the pro's and con's of what a change in the current transfer policy would have in our internet community?</font></blockquote><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000">Topic:<br>Q3: Do you feel informed enough in general to make a decision regarding a change to the current transfer policy?</font><br></blockquote></div><br><blockquote type="cite">Responses:<br> Yes - <br> No - <br> Undecided - <br> I don't care - <br><br>This is a simple poll to gauge where the community stands. If you<br>would like to elaborate on this policy topic, please post a message to the<br>PPML.<br><br>Regards,<br><br>ARIN Member Services</blockquote><br></div><div>I'd like to register a concern about the wording of these questions.</div><div>There has been almost no discussion of "a transfer proposal to change the current transfer policy" to date. Instead there have been many conversations over the years about incremental modifications of the existing (strict construction) transfer language in NPRM Section 8 (e.g., 2007-8), which were lately displaced by vigorous debate over the very specific (loose construction) transfer proposal, 2008-2. </div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>However 2008-02 represents just one of a wide variety of conceivable (pro)transfer policies.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Suggestion: Perhaps the best way to disambiguate question (1) would be to change the possible answers to</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Yes - and 2008-2 is it</div><div>Yes - but not 2008-2</div><div>No</div><div>Undecided</div><div>I don't care</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>Arguably, questions (2) and (3) should be dropped entirely, because of the fatal ambiguity of "a change to the current transfer policy". This ambiguity is eliminated if "a change" actually means 2008-2 -- every community member has a right to express an opinion / report on their personal feelings -- but how can anyone defensibly claim (i.e., why should anyone credit the claim) that they are sufficiently informed to evaluate the pros and cons of all conceivable transfer proposals?</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div><div>Suggestion: In Questions (2) and (3), "a change to the current transfer policy" should be replaced with explicit reference to 2008-2, or else the questions should be dropped.</div><div><br class="webkit-block-placeholder"></div><div>TV</div></div></body></html>