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

[Chris Grundemann]

On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 14:40, William Herrin<bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 4:03 PM, Scott Leibrand<scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>> William Herrin wrote:
>>>
>>> On Fri, Jul 24, 2009 at 2:36 PM, Scott Leibrand<scottleibrand at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> This is an update on the status of the Global Policy for the Allocation
>>>> of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries, which is policy proposal
>>>> 2009-3 here in the ARIN region. Please also see below for an updated
>>>> version of 2009-3.
>>>>
>>> If the intention is to establish an IANA method for accepting returns
>>> which we might or might not later authorize in some other ARIN policy,
>>> try replacing "may" with something more precise like "is permitted but
>>> not required to."
>>>
>>
>> That is exactly what is intended.  I have no objection to replacing "may"
>> with "is permitted but
>> not required to", if folks think that would add clarity.  To me, they mean
>> the same thing.
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> Just a quick stab at it then:
>
>>>> Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies may
>>>> recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and
>>>> designate any such space for return to the IANA.
>
> Instead:
>
> Through their respective chosen policies and strategies, each RIR will
> recover unused, misallocated and voluntarily returned IPv4 address
> space under their administration from their registrants. Where the
> RIR's policies authorize returning said IPv4 address space to IANA,
> the RIR shall set the address space aside and designate it for return
> to IANA.

The problem with that Bill, is that it seems to be setting the policy
of what will be returned in the global policy text itself, which I
believe is exactly what Scott is attempting to avoid.

Without voicing support or opposition to the policy, commenting on the
revision alone; I believe that a "shall" would make for better policy
text and in this new context do exactly what <at least some> want:

Each RIR through their respective chosen policies and strategies shall
recover IPv4 address space which is under their administration and
designate such space for return to the IANA.

To me this reads that each RIR sets their own policies for what they
will or will not recover for return and how they will acquire it;
which I (and I think Scott) believe(s) was the basic consensus from
the last meeting.  In other words, we could then adopt the global
policy with out any affects - until we passed the policy to define
what would be recovered for return and how.

In addition to maintaining Scott's intent while removing ambiguity, I
think this has the added benefit of being more likely to be accepted
by the regions who have already started adoption of this global
proposal due to the (maybe only slightly) stronger verbiage.

$0.02
~Chris

>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
>
> --
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>





-- 
Chris Grundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.twitter.com/chrisgrundemann
www.coisoc.org