<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><br><div><div>On Mar 26, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, David Farmer wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">2. Other comments about the removal of the 3 year sunset clause...<br></blockquote><br>Every single sentence in the NRPM could have a sunset clause, doubling the <br>size of the document and requiring that every part of it be constantly <br>maintained. Since the public _already has_ the capability to roll back <br>any part of the NRPM at any time, or to override any previously-enacted <br>sunset clause at any time, sunset clauses are no-ops. <br><br></div></blockquote>Respectfully, I disagree. The same argument could be made about</div><div>laws with sunset clauses, but, the same applies. While it is true that</div><div>the community can change things and could even repeal a sunset</div><div>clause, the sunset clause creates a default action that occurs unless</div><div>the community takes action. Additionally, repealing a policy, even</div><div>if there is strong community consensus to do so, takes time. By</div><div>having a sunset clause in place, it clearly indicates that the intent</div><div>of the community is for the policy to be temporary and short-term</div><div>in nature, and, it creates a default action of removing the policy</div><div>after some period of time, rather than requiring additional subsequent</div><div>action by the community to do so.</div><div><br></div><div>Clearly the sunset clause in this policy was part of what made the</div><div>policy palatable to some portion of the community. Without it, I do</div><div>not believe there was enough support for a transfer policy to call</div><div>it consensus.</div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div><font class="Apple-style-span" color="#000000"><br></font></div><div><br>Is there a perceived problem there? Is there a perceived need to <br>transfer IPv6 addresses or ASNs? If so, is that more problematic than <br>IPv4 addresses?<br><br></div></blockquote>I do not believe there is a perceived need. The transfer of IPv4 addresses</div><div>is being regarded by a very large portion of the community as an unfortunate</div><div>necessity of the current situation, not a desirable outcome. As such, expanding</div><div>the scope to include IPv6 and ASN resources is, indeed, problematic.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div></body></html>