[arin-ppml] Update on 2009-3: Global Policy for the Allocationof IPv4 Blocks to RIRs

[Kevin Kargel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Scott Leibrand [mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 17, 2009 3:38 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel
> Cc: Owen DeLong; William Herrin; ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Update on 2009-3: Global Policy for the
> Allocationof IPv4 Blocks to RIRs
> 
> Kevin Kargel wrote:
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
> >> Behalf Of Owen DeLong
> >>
> >> On Aug 17, 2009, at 12:59 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 2:52 PM, Owen DeLong<owen at delong.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>> Where authorized by their respective chosen policies and
> >>>>>> strategies,
> >>>>>> each RIR shall designate IPv4 address space recovered from its
> >>>>>> registrants for return to the IANA.
> >>>>>>
> >>>> Bill's language sounds like all resources recovered under our
> >>>> policies
> >>>> should be returned to IANA.  I am not comfortable with that wording.
> >>>>
> >>> Would you be happier with "where permitted" or "where allowed" instead
> >>> of "where authorized?" Perhaps, "To the extent permitted by".
> >>>
> >>> Fill in the blank man: _______, each RIR shall designate IPv4 address
> >>> space recovered from its registrants for return to the IANA.
> >>>
> >>>
> >> The problem is SHALL.
> >>
> >> s/shall/may/ and most of the preceding words work.
> >>
> >
> > The problem with "may" in the absence of "may not" is that then the
> entire
> > clause is no longer policy but only a suggestion.  There are better
> venues
> > for suggestions than in policy.
> >
> 
> This sentence is more than a suggestion, because it is needed to define
> "designated address space" for use in the subsequent sentence: "Each RIR
> shall at quarterly intervals return any such designated address space to
> the IANA in aggregated blocks of /24 or larger, for inclusion in the
> recovered IPv4 pool."
> 
> While turning onto the freeway on-ramp may be optional, once you've done
> so you MUST continue to the next exit.
> 
> All of the options under discussion basically do the same thing,
> AFAICT.  We're just trying to come up with the best language to express
> it.
> 
> -Scott

I guess my point is that if everything is optional then it is not policy.
Perhaps someone who understands the intended process and goal could produce
a flowchart, and from that we could develop policy language.

If there are many options then perhaps we need a complex If/Then matrix that
would preclude a bypass option and would require one of many defined paths.

Kevin

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090817/1a3530c3/attachment.bin>