[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-17 - Staff Assessment

[Member Services]

Revised Staff Assessment - 17 October 2007

Policy Proposal 2007-17
Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation

ARIN Staff Assessment

The assessment of this proposal includes comments from ARIN staff and
the ARIN General Counsel. It contains analysis of procedural, legal, and
resource concerns regarding the implementation of this policy proposal
as it is currently stated. Any changes to the language of the proposal
may necessitate further analysis by staff and Counsel.

I. Proposal

Policy Proposal is available as Annex A below and at:
http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_17.html

II. Understanding of the proposal

ARIN staff understands that the proposal would modify NRPM Section 4.6.
Ignoring the parts that concern fees and waivers, the proposal would
change the current policy by changing the timeframe for returning 
address space to ARIN.

III. Comments

   A. ARIN Staff

     There is currently an aggregation policy in NRPM 4.7. This
proposal seems to be confusing and perhaps contradicting that existing
policy.  Does this proposal replace the existing aggregation policy 4.7
in NRPM?

   B. ARIN General Counsel

“I have reviewed this policy and believe it poses no significant risk of
litigation by outside parties.

However, in my non-legal opinion, acting as counselor to the Board and
AC, the policy does something I have never previously seen and
encroaches on how ARIN has operated by custom.

To date, the ARIN Board of Trustees has unilaterally debated and set the
rates of payment for any ARIN services. Overall, this policy proposal
substitutes a policy with specific numerical promises. This would
impinge on the Board's ability to holistically adjust such economic
numbers, for example, to create a new incentive by going even further
than the policy, or less than the policy to achieve its aims. The author
and AC might consider substitution of an alternative draft policy that
gives strong directional adjectival guidance to the Board, but does not
contain specific amounts. For example, and I believe consistent with the
proposed policy, the policy adopted can make clear the community is
sending clear guidance that the economic inducements for legacy address
holders to sign a new and publicly available alternative RSA for legacy
holders can be accomplished more deftly by providing an RSA, not a
policy. The discussion approved to accompany the policy can contain
non-binding but specific recommendations for this purpose, which the
Board would probably welcome. An RSA is a contract. ARIN can
unilaterally bind itself in such contracts, promising consistent future
terms, including any promise ARIN chooses to make to not charge for
certain services. But the RSA can also be phased out, not impacting
contracted parties, but not be available for future parties who do not
sign up. Such flexibility in the RSA, with the Board following
aspirational policy is a correct direction for the continued development
of this proposal.”

Resource Impact – Minimal

The resource impact of implementing this policy is viewed as minimum.
Barring any unforeseen resource requirements, this policy could be
implemented within 30 - 90 days from the date of the ratification of the
policy by the ARIN Board of Trustees.  It will require the following:

-  Updates to Registration Services Guidelines will be required
-  Staff training will be required
-  Tracking tools for the return of the space

Respectfully submitted,

Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)


##*##


Annex A

Policy Proposal 2007-17
Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation

Author: Owen DeLong

Proposal type: modify

Policy term: permanent

Policy statement:

Modify section 4.6 as follows:

4.6 Amnesty Requests:

ARIN will accept the return or relinquishment of any address space from
any existing address holder. If the address holder wishes to aggregate
into a single block, ARIN may work with the address holder to arrive at
an allocation or assignment which is equal to or smaller than the sum of
their existing blocks and which best meets the needs of the existing
holder and the community. The organization returning the addresses shall
have 12 months from the date they receive their new addresses to return
the addresses under this policy. Organizations may request no more than
2 six month extensions to this time, which, may be granted at ARIN the
discretion of ARIN staff. There shall be no fee for returning addresses
under this policy. Further, organizations returning addresses under this
policy shall receive the following benefits:

1. If the organization does not currently pay ARIN fees, they shall
remain fee exempt.

2. The BoT shall develop an incentive program to encourage such returns.
  Such incentives may include fee reductions and/or other such
mechanisms as the BoT deems appropriate.

3. Any organization returning address space under this policy shall
continue under their existing RSA or they may choose to sign the current
RSA. For organizations which currently do not have an RSA, they may sign
the current RSA, or, they may choose to remain without an RSA.

4. All organizations returning space under this policy shall, if they
meet other eligibility requirements and so request, obtain an
appropriate IPv6 end-user assignment or ISP allocation as applicable,
with no fees for the first 5 years. Organizations electing to receive
IPv6 allocation/assignment under this provision must sign a current RSA
and must agree that all of their IPv4 and ASN resources are henceforth
subject to the RSA. Organizations taking this election shall be subject
to end-user fees for their IPv4 resources not previously under an ARIN
RSA. If they are already an ARIN subscriber, then IPv4 resources
affected by this process may, instead, be added to their existing
subscriber agreement at the address holder's discretion.

Rationale:

The current amnesty policy does a nice job of facilitating aggregation,
which was the intent when it was drafted. However, as we approach IPv4
free-space exhaustion, the community now has an additional need to
facilitate address reclamation.

A very high percentage of underutilized space is in the hands of legacy
holders who currently have no benefit to joining the ARIN process.
Further, there is an unfortunate perception that doing so will require
force the legacy holder into certain future disadvantages. This proposal
attempts to resolve both of those issues while also providing some
incentive to legacy organizations to start using IPv6 resources and
bring their IPv4 resources into the ARIN process.

This policy attempts to provide some benefit and remove most of the
costs of making partial IPv4 returns. It also attempts to provide an
incentive for these IPv4 holders to join the ARIN process.

It is suggested that the BoT adopt fee incentives such as the
elimination of 2 years of ARIN fees for each /20 returned.

Timetable for implementation: Immediate