[arin-ppml] FW: Proposal: Clarification of draft policy 2009-3 (ARIN-prop-135)
As I understand it, if we do nothing policy-wise, and a legacy /8
comes free, ARIN staff's current procedure is to give it back to IANA.
(The other RIRs would need to pass 2009-3 for IANA to give it out,
On Feb 18, 2011, at 5:27 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 18, 2011 at 7:38 PM, John Sweeting <john.sweeting at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> when evaluating proposal 131, ARIN staff
>>>> offered a radically different interpretation of 2009-3. Their
>>>> interpretation is that an ARIN policy which prevents the return of
>>>> legacy addresses to IANA (prop 131 version 3) conflicts with the
>>>> mandatory returns to IANA in draft policy 2009-3.
>> I do not remember ever seeing that stated, would you please reference the
>> email you read this in? It is the timing of PP131 that is wrong, not the
>> intent. In fact in all my conversations with any of ARIN staff I have not
>> heard that stated. I believe your use of the word "mandatory" is not
> Hi John,
> As someone who grew up in and around Washington DC, let me tell you
> something about the anatomy of political dirty tricks. The essence of
> a dirty trick is that you pick words and phrases which imply something
> blatantly false. In fact, any reasonable person without competing
> knowledge would understand you to be stating the falsehood plainly.
> Yet if pressed, you can deny ever meaning such a thing. After all,
> your words -could- have meant the truthful version too. Thus you
> escape being called a bald faced liar while widely planting the
> falsehood in voter's minds.
> What I saw happen to prop 131 yesterday stinks! The proposal's author
> was led to believe that ARIN had approved a global policy proposal
> which his proposal would violate.
> That couldn't be further from the truth!
> The global proposal in question, 2009-3, was worded the way it was
> worded because as a community we anticipated doing exactly what prop
> 131v3 calls for: giving IANA bupkis. Indeed, our purpose in advancing
> 2009-3 was little more than extending an olive branch towards the
> other regions: if we changed our minds about "no inter-region
> redistribution," no one would have to wait for a global policy before
> we could disgorge our generosity. And we wouldn't block the other
> regions from redistributing amongst themselves if they wanted to.
> I don't like the smell of the process that tricked the proposal's
> author. If 131 is opposed, let it be opposed in open debate. Don't try
> to kill it by implying the existence of competing obligations where
> there are none.
> And if I'm just jaded and I've misinterpreted honest confusion and
> poorly chosen words, let's bring that out into the light of day and
> then proceed with 131v3 without the "misunderstanding" about its
> relationship with 2009-3.
> Bill Herrin
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.