[ppml] Policy Proposal: Resource Review Process
owen at delong.com
Wed Jul 18 09:30:02 EDT 2007
On Jul 18, 2007, at 3:41 AM, Dave Mohler wrote:
> A couple of concerns:
> - Would it be appropriate/important to specify in the policy that
> the "results of the review" communicated to the organization in
> paragraph 3 include the list of resources required to be returned?
> I realize the intent is to require an amount of resources to be
> and allow the organization some flexibility in determining which
> specific blocks of IP addresses they could most easily return
> with the policy requirements.)
We believe that ARIN staff can take care of this as a procedure and
that it is not necessary to spell it out in policy.
> - Paragraph 5 doesn't give any timeline in relation to paragraphs
> 3 and 4. For instance, if ARIN notified someone yesterday and they
> don't voluntarily return the resources today, would ARIN be authorized
> by this policy to start the 6-month clock of paragraph 6 as early as
Paragraph 6 is intended to express the timeline for voluntary return
under paragraph 4. Perhaps reordering paragraphs 5 and 6 would
make this more clear?
> - Is it the intention of paragraph 8 to require legacy resource
> allocations to be reviewed with an organization's non-legacy
> What about an organization whose only IP allocation is as legacy?
> a review of these legacy resources be valid only upon the
> application for additional IP addresses? (Would this review be
> triggered by new or existing policy associated with application
Yes. The reasoning behind this is that we do not believe ARIN has any
contract or authority which allows ARIN to take such actions with
to legacy holders. ARIN is not a government body and cannot apply
imminent domain. ARIN doesn't have any agreement with legacy holders
which allows them to take any such action with respect to legacy space.
More information about the ARIN-PPML