[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA

[John Curran]

On Sep 23, 2011, at 9:44 AM, David Farmer wrote:

> This is related to ARIN-2011-9 and was intended to go to PPML originally.
> 
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] IANA implementation analysis of proposal 2011-01, "Global Policy Proposal for Post Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by IANA"
> Date: Mon, 19 Sep 2011 00:07:57 -0700
> From: S Moonesamy <sm+afrinic at elandsys.com>
> To: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
> CC: Philip Smith <pfsinoz at gmail.com>,    Alejandro Acosta <alejandro.acosta at bt.com>,    sig-policy at lists.apnic.net,    Masato Yamanishi <myamanis at bb.softbank.co.jp>,    Nicolas Antoniello <nantoniello at gmail.com>,    rpd at afrinic.net,    politicas at lacnic.net,  Douglas Onyango <ondouglas at yahoo.com>,    "GT RAMIREZ, Medel G." <medel at globetel.com.ph>,    arin-ppml at arin.net
> 
> At 06:08 05-08-2011, Emilio Madaio wrote:
> ...
>> IANA staff impact analysis of RIPE policy proposal 2011-01
>> 
>> This analysis considers the impact of ratification of RIPE policy
>> proposal 2011-01 (as a part of GPP-IPv4-2011) by the ICANN Board of Directors.
>> 
>> 1. .. It is not clear whether this policy proposal is intended to supersede
>>    the IETF’s right to make IPv4 assignments for “specialised address blocks 
>>    (such as multicast or anycast blocks)” as documented in section 4.3 of
>>    RFC 2860.This should be clarified but that can probably be done by way
>>    of assertions from the NRO rather than a revision to the policy text.
>> ...
> The authors of proposal 2011-01 (GPP-IPv4-2011) do not intend to take
> over the IETF's role in assigning internet resources.
> 
> The IANA Staff analysis asks for an assertion from the NRO instead of
> a revision to the policy text.  During discussions with the ARIN
> Advisory Council, it was mentioned that the clarification requires a
> text change to the proposal.  It was also mentioned that the ASO,
> instead of the NRO, must provide the clarification.  To avoid any
> doubt, the authors of the proposal would appreciate if the ASO or the
> NRO, whichever is the appropriate party, can clarify that.

It is my understanding is that (per the "Global Policy Development Process"
in the ASO MOU) the ASO AC will consider the common global policy text that 
is ratified in each region, and that the change to the policy rationale does
not impact the approval of the global policy as it is not part of the actual
policy text.

Further, I not aware of anyone in any region asserting that the proposed 
global policy is intended to supercede the IETF's role w.r.t specialized 
address blocks, but I can understand the IANA review appropriately raising 
this question for avoidance of any doubt.

Since the policy rationale in the ARIN region now includes implementation
guidance which calls for the NRO clarifying this point, upon adoption in 
the ARIN region, staff will raise this matter to the NRO EC and presuming 
the NRO EC concurs, I expect that a clarifying note to this effect would 
then be sent to the IANA.  

Another option would be to get such information in the common policy text 
which is sent by the ASO AC to ICANN for ratification, but it would appear 
to me that getting that done would require the global policy text to be 
revised in all of the regions. This is suboptimal for a number of reasons,
and in my opinion unnecessary when the clarification is entirely to say that
a plain reading of the policy language reflects the policy intent, i.e. that
the policy does not attempt to alter the existing roles between the parties
as defined in RFC 2860.  The IANA staff impact analysis suggests similarly 
that a simple assertion to this effect from the NRO should suffice for their 
purposes.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN