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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 4:21 AM, <michael.dillon at bt.com> wrote:
>> Frankly, though, I don't see much point in this policy.  When
>> we hit the wall, everyone is going to be wanting more space
>> and there will be none in IANA's return pool.  When we
>> finally come to our senses and switch to IPv6, there will be
>> loads of returns that nobody will want and that the RIRs
>> might as well hold on to in case of future stupidity in their
>> region.  Why make extra work for IANA just because one region
>> might be dumber than the others?  It'd be one thing if we
>> were moving entire /8s, but mere /24s?  That's nuts.
>
> Well said!
>
> I totally agree with this analysis of the proposal. There is no
> point in returning IPv4 addresses to IANA.
>
> The only thing that IANA can do with addresses is to give them
> to another RIR. Another reasonable way to address this is to
> wait until a needy RIR approaches ARIN and deal with it at that
> time.
>


I've brought that approach up previously suggesting that while we
abandon this global policy we think about creating a process allowing
out-of-ARIN-region entities to apply directly to ARIN, subject to our
rules and the will of the members, for any excess space that "might"
become available. Sure, the IANA issued it before it became ICANN and
the RIR's existed, but noone could have foreseen that we would be here
today. The same social arguments can not apply (too many lawyers) and
I think that stewardship means that we serve the interest of our own
region first and foremost and then do the best that we can to assist
others. I think that this kind of approach does that.

1. Strictly subject inventory relased to "others" to some version of the ARIN RS
2. Insure that the same v4 is unable to be sold or transferred to any
other entity in any region for any reason
3. Subject to the BoT's emergency powers in case of abuse/failure

As far as this "policy" is concerned, I can't think of a good reason
to write local hooks into global policy. They are not only policy
hooks, but possible legal hooks (litigation magnets); they set
expectations. I would suggest a whole new policy that focused on ICANN
and a specific function of accepting returned IPv4 and V6 blocks
without any language geared towards "if RIR's" or "when RIR's" or
"RIR's may". Perhaps trying to correct this problem prior to v6
exhaustion in 2199 may be useful.

That, and the litany of arguments underlining the overall unfairness
of any sort of coerced for forced repatriation of v4 space to ICANN
should, IMHO, cause this policy to be abandoned. IMHO, of course.

Best,

Martin