[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-136 Services Opt-out Allowed for Unaffiliated Address Blocks
On Feb 25, 2011, at 2:02 AM, John Curran wrote:
> On Feb 25, 2011, at 3:30 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> It is my belief that ARIN doesn't have any fundamental authority to prevent an opt-out, and that prop-136 would reconcile policy with reality in order to avoid unnecessary damages (to the address holders and the community).
> Interesting belief system, but incorrect. It's actually the other
> way around, in that ARIN is obligated to adhere to global number
> resource policy, and this specifies that a single RIR shall serve
> a given geography.
I have no argument opposing that ARIN is obligated to perform according to its own bylaws and agreements (with ICANN, RSA holders, etc). My statement is that ARIN lacks authority to exert regulation over unaffiliated organizations, such as legacy holders that haven't signed a LRSA. If such an organization decides to transfer addresses without consulting ARIN, and ARIN enforces policy over that organization as a result of their actions, then ARIN has exerted authority. Where does such authority come from?
>> In that light, I'm motivated to help ARIN avoid improper behavior by personally participating in the development of policy.
> Your concern for the organization's performance (while misplaced
> in this particular case) is so noted.
> The good news is that we have competent staff and counsel to
> assist ARIN performing in accordance with mission and law,
> with such guidance is ultimately subject to the judgement of
> the elected Board.
I'm glad to hear that. On the other hand, this statement doesn't exactly reinforce your previous comments about community driven policy development. Is it really board-driven and/or staff-driven policy development?
>> As to the specific point about "existing agreements to manage the resources", and your comments elsewhere about the need for a global policy discussion, can you please clarify? I may be overlooking something, but I cannot find anything that prohibits ARIN from allowing organizations to opt-out of receiving ARIN services.
> The very first principle of ICANN ICP-2 states:
> "Each region should be served by a single RIR, established under
> one management and in one location. The establishment of multiple
> RIRs in one region is likely to lead to:
> • fragmentation of address space allocated to the region;
> • difficulty for co-ordination and co-operation between the RIRs;
> • confusion for the community within the region. "
> Not surprisingly, those very concerns seem to echo what many have
> said on this list regarding "alternative" registries.
Yes, I read ICP-2 before asking the question. It appears to prefer ("should") a single RIR per region, and gives reasons for a centralized management structure. However I don't see where ICP-2 limits the ability of an RIR to choose the specific implementation details of that management structure. Can you clarify further?