ARIN-PPML Message

[arin-ppml] FW: Proposal: Clarification of draft policy 2009-3 (ARIN-prop-135)

On Feb 19, 2011, at 9:26 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> 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. ...

Bill - 
 
  That might be your reasoning for why global policy needed to 
  be changed from requiring return to IANA of recovered blocks to 
  optionally designating blocks for return to IANA, but I know
  that is not a universally held view.  I'd point to the staff 
  review <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_3.html> and 
  note that the original proposal was identified as fatally flawed
  not because ARIN would be returning space to the IANA, but when
  ARIN might have to return space to IANA for redistribution when
  other regions had departed from the overall community goals in
  RFC2050. (i.e. sharing things based on common principles and 
  goals can readily be explained to the community in this region,
  it is much more challenging to do so in the absence of any
  shared set of goals)

> 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.

Here's the message that I sent to the AC regarding the interaction of 
2009-3 and policy proposal 131 -

> Team - 
>
> If the AC intent is that this take effect until "otherwise directed by global
> policy" then it would be best to say that in Policy Proposal 131.  If the
> intent is this policy proposal is intended to permanently pre-empt global 
> policy (even once passed) then state something to that effect.   There is
> a fairly large difference between those two positions.
>...

As always, the goal is simply to have a compendium of understandable policy.

> 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.

The misunderstanding will remain under the policy proposal text 
is made explicit one way or the other.  For many, the optionality 
added to 2009-3 was to address a specific fiduciary requirement,
not to signal that space was never to be returned, and it is that 
difference in view which might be underlying some of the confusion 
here.

Hope this helps,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN