[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Review Process

[michael.dillon at bt.com]

> The nature of the "review" is to be of the same form as is 
> currently done when an organization requests new resources, 
> i.e. the documentation required and standards should be the same.

This text is not in the policy itself but is in the explanation. As
such, it is not binding on ARIN.

But it does raise the question. If the nature of the review is the same
as is done for new allocations, then what is the point of having a
review policy at all? Are there that many organizations that do not
apply for new allocations every year or two? Just how many addresses in
total are allocated to such organizations?

Or is the entire point of this policy to slip in the language which
gives legacy address holders extra rights above and beyond the majority
of us. Let's look at point 8:

8.  Legacy resources in active use, regardless of utilization, are not
subject to revocation by ARIN.  However, the utilization of legacy
resources shall be considered during a review to assess overall
compliance.

If an organization is a legacy address holder and also has non-legacy
addresses, then they could lose the non-legacy addresses if their
overall usage is not sufficient. But they cannot lose any of their
legacy addresses regardless of what their usage level is. If a company
has a Class B /16 legacy block in which they can only justfy one /24,
then ARIN can *NOT* recover the additional 255 /24's. But the same
company with allocations under the RSA must show that they are using
some percentage (is it 50% ?) of the /16 or they risk losing the unused
addresses.

This is not a fair and balanced policy.

--Michael Dillon