[ppml] Policy Proposal 2007-14: To Be Revised
info at arin.net
Mon Apr 14 16:28:36 EDT 2008
Policy Proposal 2007-14
Resource Review Process
On 9 April 2008, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC), acting under the
provisions of the ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process,
determined that this proposal should be revised. The AC will work with
the author of the proposal to revise the text and return the proposal to
the PPML for further discussion.
The policy proposal text is provided below and is also available at:
The ARIN Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process can be found at:
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
## * ##
Policy Proposal 2007-14
Resource Review Process
Author: Owen DeLong, Stephen Sprunk
Proposal Version: 2.1
Date: 24 March 2008
Proposal type: modify
Policy term: permanent
Add the following to the NRPM:
1. ARIN may review the current usage of any resources issued by ARIN to
an organization. The organization shall furnish whatever records are
believed to be necessary by ARIN to perform this review.
2. ARIN may conduct such reviews:
a. when any new resource is requested,
b. whenever ARIN has reason to believe that the resources were
originally obtained fraudulently, or c. at any other time without having
to establish cause unless a prior review has been completed in the
preceding 24 months.
3. ARIN shall communicate the results of the review to the organization.
4. Organizations found by ARIN to be substantially out of compliance
with current ARIN policy shall be requested or required to return
resources as needed to bring them into (or reasonably close to) compliance.
4a. The extent to which an organization may remain out of compliance
shall be based on the reasonable judgment of the ARIN staff and shall
balance all facts known, including the organizations utilization rate,
available address pool, and other factors as appropriate so as to avoid
forcing returns which will result in near-term additional requests or
unnecessary route de-aggregation.
4b. To the extent possible, entire blocks should be returned. Partial
address blocks shall be returned in such a way that the portion retained
will comprise a single aggregate block.
5. If the organization does not voluntarily return resources as
requested, ARIN may revoke any resources issued by ARIN as required to
bring the organization into overall compliance. ARIN shall follow the
same guidelines for revocation that are required for voluntary return in
the previous paragraph.
6. Except in cases of fraud, or intentional violations of policy, an
organization shall be given a minimum of six months to effect a return.
ARIN shall negotiate a longer term with the organization if ARIN
believes the organization is working in good faith to substantially
restore compliance and has a valid need for additional time to renumber
out of the affected blocks.
7. ARIN shall continue to maintain the resource(s) while their return or
revocation is pending, except no any maintenance fees assessed during
that period shall be calculated as if the return or revocation was complete.
8. Legacy resources in active use, regardless of utilization, are not
subject to revocation by ARIN. pursuant to this subsection. However, the
utilization of legacy resources shall be considered during a review to
assess overall compliance.
9. In considering compliance with policies which allow a timeframe (such
as a requirement to assign some number of prefixes within 5 years)
failure to comply cannot be measured until after the timeframe specified
in the applicable policy has elapsed. Blocks subject to such a policy
shall be assumed in compliance with that policy until such time as the
specified time since issuance has elapsed.
Delete NRPM sections 4.1.2, 4.1.3, 4.1.4
Remove the sentence "In extreme cases, existing allocations may be
affected." from NRPM section 126.96.36.199.
The authors have been told that current policy does not clearly give
ARIN the power to review or reclaim resources except in cases of fraud,
despite this being mentioned in the Registration Services Agreement.
This policy proposal provides clear policy authority to do so,
guidelines for how and under what conditions it shall be done, and a
guarantee of a (minimum) six- month grace period so that the current
user shall have time to renumber out of any resources to be reclaimed.
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.
The intent of paragraph 2c is to prevent ARIN from doing more than one
without-cause review in a 24 month period.
The renumbering period does not affect any "hold" period that ARIN may
apply after return or revocation of resources is complete.
The deleted sections/text would be redundant with the adoption of this
Timetable for implementation: Immediate
More information about the ARIN-PPML