[arin-ppml] 2008-6 Combined Wording Alternative

[John Santos]

I have a minor nit with the original wording and Bill D.'s rewording
that Bill H.'s version clears up.  There's a "they" with no
antecedent.  Obviously it is intended to refer to the recipient,
but literally, it refers to the number resources themselves (or
possibly to ARIN.)


Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> 
> Policy Proposal 2008-6 wording:
> 
> For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, ARIN-region number
> resources may be released, in whole or in part, to ARIN or another
> organization, by the authorized holder of the resource.
> 
> Number resources may only be received under RSA, with demonstrated need,
> in the exact amount which they are able to justify under ARIN

----------------------------^^^^

> resource-allocation policies.
> 


Alternatively,

"Number resources may only be received under RSA, with demonstrated
need, in the exact amount which can be justified under ARIN
resource-allocation policies."

The antecedent for "which" is clearly the amount of number resources.

> Bill Herrin's wording:
> 
> For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, resource holders
> served by ARIN may designate a recipient for number resources they
> release to ARIN. ARIN will honor said designation provided the
> recipient meets all other policy criteria for registering those
> resources.
> 
> 

Someone else asked if this could result in fragmentation because
the lack of the phrase "the exact amount" from the original.
But isn't this covered by "all other policy criteria"?  Which
phrase also covers the dropped mention of the RSA...


> Seems to me that Bill Herrin's version is clearer, but changes the 
> proposal by
> stating the transfer of resources must involve ARIN as a transfer 
> intermediary.
> 
> 2008-6 says: "..may be released...to ARIN or another organization...."
> 
> Bill says: "..may designate a recipient for numbers they release to 
> ARIN..."
> 
> Is this a semantic difference???...where in practice, the transfer is 
> really 'on paper' and ARIN is going to record the transfer in either case?

Since only ARIN can judge whether the recipient meets ARIN's policy
criteria, and the recipient has to sign an RSA, I think ARIN has to
be involved even in a direct transfer from holder to recipient using
the original wording, so I don't think the wording makes any
difference.  But IANAL :-)

> 
> And, of course, Scott has already highlighted the lack of 2008-6's second
> paragraph in Bill's alternative.  Could the second paragraph simply be 
> added while eliminating the last sentence of Bill's...as that would be 
> redundant....
> 
> And, the clause .. "with demonstrated need" ...can be removed because it is
> implicit in the .."able to justify"... clause...
> 
> This would yield...
> 
> For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, resource holders
> served by ARIN may designate a recipient for number resources they
> release to ARIN.
> 
> Number resources may only be received under RSA in the exact amount
> which they are able to justify under ARIN resource-allocation policies.

--------^^^^

This reintroduces the "they"...

"Recipients may receive number resources only under RSA..." would fix it
here too.

Alternatively,

"Number resources may only be received under RSA in the exact amount
which can be justified under ARIN resource-allocation policies."


-- 
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539