<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy (Using theEmergency PDP)</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>Agreed.<BR>
<BR>
Bill Darte<BR>
ARIN AC<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of Owen DeLong<BR>
Sent: Thu 3/26/2009 7:47 PM<BR>
To: Bill Woodcock<BR>
Cc: arin-ppml@arin.net<BR>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy (Using theEmergency PDP)<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
On Mar 26, 2009, at 4:50 PM, Bill Woodcock wrote:<BR>
<BR>
> On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, David Farmer wrote:<BR>
>> 2. Other comments about the removal of the 3 year sunset clause...<BR>
><BR>
> Every single sentence in the NRPM could have a sunset clause, <BR>
> 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 <BR>
> back<BR>
> any part of the NRPM at any time, or to override any previously-<BR>
> enacted<BR>
> sunset clause at any time, sunset clauses are no-ops.<BR>
><BR>
Respectfully, I disagree. The same argument could be made about<BR>
laws with sunset clauses, but, the same applies. While it is true that<BR>
the community can change things and could even repeal a sunset<BR>
clause, the sunset clause creates a default action that occurs unless<BR>
the community takes action. Additionally, repealing a policy, even<BR>
if there is strong community consensus to do so, takes time. By<BR>
having a sunset clause in place, it clearly indicates that the intent<BR>
of the community is for the policy to be temporary and short-term<BR>
in nature, and, it creates a default action of removing the policy<BR>
after some period of time, rather than requiring additional subsequent<BR>
action by the community to do so.<BR>
<BR>
Clearly the sunset clause in this policy was part of what made the<BR>
policy palatable to some portion of the community. Without it, I do<BR>
not believe there was enough support for a transfer policy to call<BR>
it consensus.<BR>
><BR>
><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>
I do not believe there is a perceived need. The transfer of IPv4 <BR>
addresses<BR>
is being regarded by a very large portion of the community as an <BR>
unfortunate<BR>
necessity of the current situation, not a desirable outcome. As such, <BR>
expanding<BR>
the scope to include IPv6 and ASN resources is, indeed, problematic.<BR>
<BR>
Owen<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>