On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 01:00:15PM -0600, David Farmer wrote: > On Fri, Dec 27, 2019 at 12:01 PM John Curran <jcur...@arin.net> wrote: [snip] > > It is certainly the case that if you wanted ARIN to do something different > > than that, the alternative would need to be clearly spelt out in policy ??? > > the highly obvious nature of returning blocks to their special pools > > doesn???t necessarily require any specification in policy, unless it is > > being > > done to avoid having such blocks inadvertently become subject to new policy > > language. > > > > If this policy doesn't gain consensus, I don't think it is necessary to put > the first sentence into policy separately, I agree it is a fairly obvious > thing to do. However, having it included in this policy makes it abundantly > clear that the second sentence doesn't somehow apply the resources > originally allocated from the 4.4 or 4.10 pools. Further, the second > sentence, as written, applies to "any other resource", and that phrasing > wouldn't make much sense without the first sentence. I support both in principle and the specific text, also notably to provide the insurance as indicated by the tail end of John's paragraph above.
-- Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header. Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
