[arin-ppml] Transfer Proposals

[Stephen Sprunk]

Leo Bicknell wrote:
> In a message written on Tue, Sep 30, 2008 at 01:15:33AM -0500, mack wrote:
>   
>> Wow, I did a closer read and you are correct.
>> There is nothing in either the policy manual or
>> the RSA that requires the return of unused resources
>> if they are justified and later not needed.
>>     
>
> http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc2050.html
>
> Section 3.1:
>
> ] IP addresses are valid as long as the criteria continues to be met.
> ] The IANA reserves the right to invalidate any IP assignments once it
> ] is determined the the requirement for the address space no longer
> ] exists.  In the event of address invalidation, reasonable efforts
> ] will be made by the appropriate registry to inform the organization
> ] that the addresses have been returned to the free pool of IPv4
> ] address space.
>
> http://www.arin.net/policy/nrpm.html#four17
>
> ] 4.1.7. RFC 2050
> ] 
> ] ARIN takes guidance from allocation and assignment policies and
> ] procedures set forth in RFC 2050. These guidelines were developed to
> ] meet the needs of the larger Internet community in conserving scarce
> ] IPv4 address space and allowing continued use of existing Internet
> ] routing technologies.
>
> http://www.arin.net/registration/agreements/rsa.pdf
>
> ] 7. POLICIES 
> ] 
> ] Pursuant to ARIN's Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process
> ] ("IRPEP"), ARIN maintains the Policies and may amend the Policies,
> ] implement new policies (which once implemented, will be considered
> ] Policies), or make certain Policies obsolete. Applicant acknowledges
> ] and agrees it has read, understands, and agrees to be bound by and
> ] comply with the Policies, as amended.  ARIN may, at any time in its
> ] sole and absolute discretion, amend the Policies or create new
> ] Policies and such amendments or new Policies shall be binding upon
> ] Applicant immediately after they are posted on the Website.
>
> RSA->Policies->2050->Unused IP allocations can be invalidated.
>   

The problem with that chain is that policy only claims "guidance" from 
RFC 2050; it isn't binding and we are free to directly contradict it if 
we so desire -- just like we ignored the IETF when adopting direct 
end-user assignments for IPv6.  It was a good starting point and a 
historical statement of intent that might be useful to staff (or, worst 
case, courts) when policy is ambiguous, but that's it.

I'll point out again that, when I put in an ACSP suggestion that ARIN 
start reclaiming unused space, the official answer was that ARIN _did 
not_ have the policy authority to do that.  OTOH, Steve Ryan has said 
ARIN has the contractual authority.  This disagreement is where my part 
of 2007-14 came from: I wanted a policy that clearly said ARIN did have 
the authority (which many of us previously assumed it already had, 
perhaps incorrectly), but to put some reasonable limits on its use.

S