[address-policy-wg] 2012-09 New Policy Proposal (Modification of The Time Limits For Temporary Internet Assignments)

On 12/15/12 06:13 , Gert Doering wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 01:06:27PM +0100, Dan Luedtke wrote:
>> I agree with Richard, the statement isn't clear.
>>
>> Can't we just say n days instead of month?
>> With n being 30* days?
>
> So, do you want to see this policy implemented quickly, or do you want to
> paint a bikeshed instead?
>
> I think "one month" is perfectly fine.  In practice, it would not make
> a difference whether this is 30 or 31 days, and I'm sure the NCC would
> be reasonable if February is involved - but even 28 days is better than
> 7 days (what we have now).
>
> Gert Doering
>          -- APWG chair

I have to agree with Gert this is perfectly clear.  It simply means if 
you get the assignment on the 5th day of the month, have to return it on 
the 5th day of the month plus the duration of the event.  You may 
reasonably ask if that is fair, that some get it only 28, 29 or 30 extra 
days while others get 31 extra days, it may be arbitrary, but it is not 
ambiguous or unclear.

I also agree that this is very reasonable for the vast majority of 
events lasting a week to 10 days or so.  However, there are events that 
last longer or are of a size, complexity and/or stature that even a 
month could be insufficient setup and testing time.  Such events are 
much less frequent and fewer in number, but their importance probably 
justifies more time, the Olympics, fairs and other provincial, national, 
or world expositions are a few examples.

If we use the London 2012 Olympics as an extreme example, the events 
were scheduled from July 27th to August 12th or 17 days, and would seem 
to be allowed 47 days under the policy.  However, other preparations for 
the Olympics were years in the making, construction of venues began 
years in advance.  Even a month simply would be insufficient time for 
the kind of testing an event of such size, complexity, and stature 
requires.  Something like 9 million tickets were available for the 
events.  While this is one of the most extreme case, its clear there are 
events that justify more than a month for set up and testing.  Maybe 
attendance in the range of 50 or 100 thousand could be used as a 
threshold between these larger scale event and more typical events or 
conferences that this policy change is intended to cover.

Could I also make a suggestion, that you allow for reservations on 
temporary resources to be made up to one year in advance.  This would 
allow event coordinators to know if temporary resources will or will not 
be available way before the period that they are allowed to actually use 
the resources.  The intent isn't the they get the resources a year a 
head of time or that they even know which resources they will have, but 
that they know they will be available when they are entitled to use them.




-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================