The document which, mea culpa, I inappropriately released to the just as a side note: i do not understand this sentiment. Nowhere does it say that policy ideas and proposals cannot be discussed on WG mailing lists before formal submission.
however it seems to have become a policy proposal whether we like it or not. and as such it seems to have some formal restrictions on being updated, whether we like it or not.
So, I understand this is to ensure the legacy resource holders of the continued, unconstrained and, at least in part, free of charge, access to certain services that are tightly bound to the then registration
i believe you understand incorrectly. the words "unconstrained" and "free of charge" are yours.
I would like to see some motivation why this subject to the PDP at all rather than, maybe, an issue for the NCC AGM (not taking a position, but asking for clarification) because it in part looks like a service fee waiver.
there are far more issues than fees, which i believe are the purview of the AGM. and i believe what is being asked to be considered is in fact to pay for services now received for free. but there are also issues of address policy and similar.
Looking forward to the edited next version.
as are many. i think folk are figuring out how to do that within the rule trap into which it has fallen. randy