On Fri, Nov 18, 2016 at 8:10 AM, William Herrin <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks John, I appreciate the clarification. > > Please pardon my rhetoric, but does the NRPM have any more instances > of non-binding "community expectations" that we can all safely ignore? > It seems to me like this sort of thing is undesirable in an > otherwise-binding policy document. > > Regards, > Bill Herrin >
Bill, While I may not be happy with the way this particular "community expectation" is instantiated in policy, I feel the policy in question is too onerous. That said, I think it is extremely important for "community expectations" to be communicated through policy. Further, I would suggest that an attitude that non-binding "community expectations" can be safely ignored is dangerous, because it only invites the community to create policies that are binding and likely to be inflexible and even more onerous. If fact I feel the reason we have the policy in question is because too many people are ignoring "community expectations" to begin with. Voluntary compliance with "community expectations" is a much preferred model for most policy in my opinion and is key to the industry self-regulatory model. Thanks. -- =============================================== David Farmer Email:[email protected] Networking & Telecommunication Services Office of Information Technology University of Minnesota 2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815 Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952 ===============================================
_______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
