[arin-ppml] 2008-6 inscrutable?

[Scott Leibrand]

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> William Herrin wrote:
>> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:18 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>  
>>> On Tue, Dec 23, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
>>>    
>>>> Policy statement:
>>>>
>>>> 8.4 Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses
>>>>
>>>> For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, ARIN-region 
>>>> number resources may be released, in whole or in part, to ARIN or 
>>>> another organization, by the authorized holder of the resource.
>>>>
>>>> Number resources may only be received under RSA, with demonstrated 
>>>> need, in the exact amount which they are able to justify under ARIN 
>>>> resource-allocation policies.
>>>>       
>>> The language here seems labyrinthine, almost government-speak. Even 
>>> knowing that this was a transfer proposal, I had to parse it phrase 
>>> by phrase before I caught on that "or another organization" means 
>>> you can gift the released addresses to a specific registrant.
>>>     
>>
>> Hi folks,
>>
>> Can we take a break from the flame war long enough to discuss this?
>>   
>
> Please!
>
>> I did not observe anyone replying to my comments by stating a belief 
>> that the policy language above is clear and concise. Notwithstanding 
>> the differing views on whether the proposed policy is good, is there 
>> is general agreement that the policy language is rather enigmatic?
>>   
>
> *shrug*  I understood the intent the first time I read it, it doesn't 
> seem worse than many existing parts of the NRPM.  Our community does 
> seem to prefer legalistic wording (say, compared to other RIRs), 
> perhaps because it is more precise.

For what it's worth, Bill Darte and I have been seriously considering 
your alternative wording, with the desire of restating the intent of 
2008-6 in the simplest possible language.  The only real concern I have 
with it is regards to what we informally call the "full-fill rule", 
which in the currently 2008-6 language is represented by the word 
"exact", as in "in the exact amount which they are able to justify".  If 
we can find some additional clause or sentence to add to your language 
to represent that condition (that the recipient can only receive one 
transfer to meet their current needs, not a bunch of separate small 
transfers), then I wouldn't oppose using the "minor edits" action to 
update the language and re-post 2008-6 for another round of last call.

However, as Stephen expressed, I don't see any real problems with the 
existing language either.  So perhaps a question to the community: is 
there anyone who opposes 2008-6 as written, but would support it with 
clearer language along the lines of what Bill outlined?

Thanks,
Scott