[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-14 - Staff Assessment

[Owen DeLong]

On Mar 22, 2008, at 3:48 AM, Member Services wrote:

> Policy Proposal 2007-14	
> Title:   Resource Review Process
> Proposal Submitted: Feb 21, 2008
> Date of Assessment: Mar 21, 2008
>
> III.	Comments
>
> A.	ARIN Staff
>
> 1.  2c does not reconcile with the RSA, which grants ARIN authority to
> request any data necessary and does not specify any sort of limitation
> to frequency.
>
This is somewhat intentional, and, the authors believe that the RSA
would likely be revised to reflect this change in policy. In part,  
however,
the "any data necessary" clause was an unintentional modificiation
and has been corrected with today's 2.1 version of the policy.

> 2.   Item 3 requires staff to share the results of an audit of an
> organization’s resources.  Staff often reviews an organization’s
> transaction history and resources during fraud or suspicious activity
> investigations and feels that it is not always prudent to share those
> results.
>
While this may be true under some circumstances, the authors feel
that transparency is the overriding concern here. Further, the "results"
which must be shared are not intended to go beyond the level of
"a review was conducted and ARIN will be taking XYZ action
as a result." where XYZ would be one of "NO" or "further steps
to reclaim" or other appropriate phrase.

We did not expect results to include detailed internal data about
the process or any privileged work product of any investigation.

If staff feels that the current language does not achieve this intent,
the authors would welcome recommended language from staff
or any other source which achieves this stated intent.

> 3.  Point 4b uses the term “single aggregate block” Does this refer  
> to a
> single CIDR prefix, or to “a contiguous range of addresses”?
>
Where possible, a single CIDR prefix, but, if, for example, the required
return would be 1.5 /16s, authors believe that a contiguous range
is desirable in cases where the return cannot be satisfied from
existing /16 and /17 .  The real goal of this statement is to avoid
having someone who has, say, a /16 from returning something
like every other /26 out of their block to effect the return of a  /17
worth of addresses.  The authors believe that staff and the
organizations in question can come to reasonable agreement
in the best interests of the community using the language
specified.  However, if better language can be provided, we
could adopt that.

>
> B.	ARIN General Counsel
>
> This policy will be looked at very carefully in those instances where
> ARIN demands data, or seeks to terminate and revoke resources  
> previously
> granted. It will guide ARIN, and any reviewing adjudication court who
> may be required to evaluate a dispute, review it because it sets up
> procedures for revocation, and requires production of data. Writing  
> down
> such policies may be important support for ARIN's application of such
> policies. However, the same benefit can become a problem if the  
> language
> is not carefully constructed. Counsel supports a version of this  
> policy
> being enacted and believes adoption of this policy could reduce future
> legal fees.
>
> Some language tweaks may help. For this reason I am suggesting the
> author and AC consider language that tightens the policy from a legal
> perspective but is consistent with the perceived intent of the author.
> Some language changes are more important than others.  Please note:
> Outlook doesn't permit redlining to show; it automatically accepts the
> redlined changes.  Therefore, the redlines have been accepted in 1-8  
> below.
>
All of these changes were incorporated into the 2.1 version of the  
proposal.
Indeed, this request was the driving motivation to the creation of the  
2.1
version of the proposal.

As one of the authors, I apologize for the late change to accommodate
this request, but, we felt it was best to get the changes out as soon as
possible while still addressing the concerns raised by counsel.

As a member of the AC, I will be looking for ways that staff and counsel
can work better with proposal authors to get this kind of feedback in  
the
hands of the authors earlier in the process to better facilitate changes
with more notice prior to the meeting.

Owen