[arin-ppml] FW: Proposal: Clarification of draft policy 2009-3 (ARIN-prop-135)
Speaking for the AC both Marty and Owen have it right.
Sorry Bill, no beltway conspiracy here but thank you for your perspective. We truly value the input and view points of the community. It is very apparent that you are interested in helping to see the right things get done. Thanks again.
----- Reply message -----
From: "Owen DeLong" <owen at delong.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 19, 2011 1:00 am
Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: Proposal: Clarification of draft policy 2009-3 (ARIN-prop-135)
To: "Scott Leibrand" <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net" <arin-ppml at arin.net>
I don't believe that is the case...
If it's a /8 or larger, then IANA will give it out to whichever RIR
asks for it first.
2009-3 is necessary if IANA is to parcel out chunks smaller than /8
There are no dirty tricks here, Bill.
I think there are multiple layers of misunderstanding and different
Staff understanding of current policy
Staff implementation of current policy
Staff understanding and impending implementation of 2009-3
We didn't oppose 131, we moved it forward for discussion at the
Puerto Rico meeting. The AC did make some changes to the
policy text in that process and we will probably continue to
improve it between now and the March 7 text freeze. Doing so
is within the purview of the AC and is in our job description. It's
what we are expected to do.
Speaking for myself about my impression of the AC's actions
and not acting as a spokesman for the AC.
On Feb 18, 2011, at 5:36 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
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.
This E-mail and any of its attachments may contain Time Warner Cable proprietary information, which is privileged, confidential, or subject to copyright belonging to Time Warner Cable. This E-mail is intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which it is addressed. If you are not the intended recipient of this E-mail, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution, copying, or action taken in relation to the contents of and attachments to this E-mail is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this E-mail in error, please notify the sender immediately and permanently delete the original and any copy of this E-mail and any printout.