[arin-ppml] Transfer Proposals
stephen at sprunk.org
Fri Oct 3 14:53:34 EDT 2008
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.
> 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.
> ] 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.
> ] 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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML