Niall,
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.
authors as version 1 of a policy proposal. The document formally released by Emilio as version 1 of policy proposal 2012-07 is indeed essentially identical.
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 (well, back then it was an assignment even if practices predate the term). 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. If there was a policy to instantiate, the infinite perpetuation clause in section 6.3 appears to me like a non starter. However, if this is more the expression of an opinion or legal standpoint, then it should be made visible as such. Which leaves me to conclude that most of what is proposed is actually not a proposal but a memorandum of understanding (or simply an acknowledgement) of the "rights" of legacy resource holders with respect to today's governance framework and service environment. It is much more deductive than constructive, so again the question is why the PDP is appropriate (and also, why this can be appropriately addressed by collective action). In any case, I would question the part where the "rights" are attached to the resource rather than the historic assignment act. Looking forward to the edited next version. -Peter