[arin-ppml] FW: Proposal: Clarification of draft policy 2009-3 (ARIN-prop-135)
On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 5:59 PM, cja at daydream.com <packetgrrl at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think what the ARIN staff was saying was not that prop 131 conflicts with
> the "mandatory returns" in 2009-3 because there are no mandatory returns in
> 2009-3 but 131 makes it so there are no blocks to be voluntarily returned in
> 2009-3 specifically states, "Each RIR through their respective chosen
> policies and strategies may
> recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and
> designate any such space for return to the IANA. Each RIR shall at
> quarterly intervals return any such designated address space to the IANA
> in aggregated blocks of /24 or larger, for inclusion in the recovered
> IPv4 pool."
> This is not mandatory return. 131 specifically says that ARIN will make
> recovered legacy space available for distribution within the ARIN region.
> If it passes then it conflicts with 2009-3 because there would be no blocks
> that could be designated for return to IANA.
Conflict is an action word. It means "you may not do X because." "We
designate the null set for return to IANA" does not conflict with
2009-3. It renders 2009-3 functionally inert but it does not
"conflict." If there is any doubt about that, then it is appropriate
for us to clear up that doubt.
"We designate the null set for return to IANA" does not conflict with
ARIN practice either. It _changes_ ARIN practice. Generally speaking,
that's what policy is for.
If this is a case of poorly chosen words, I'll be pleased to withdraw
prop 135 once staff updates it's guidance to reflect that while 131
designates a null set for return under 2009-3, it does not _conflict_
with any active or tentative obligations under 2009-3 or any other
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004