[arin-ppml] Global policy- use of "may & should" ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 49, Issue 15

[RudOlph Daniel]

My tendency is to agree with Bill Herrin and Kevin on the use of "may" and
"should" in policy statemebts; but does the AC have a motive in the use of
such?

Rudi Daniel

>
>
> 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.
> [...]
> > 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. 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.
>
> Scott,
>
> Let's parse that: Each RIR [...] may [...] designate any such space
> for return to the IANA.
>
> I object to the intentionally ambiguous and potentially dishonest use
> of the word "may" here. Policy should not describe what we might or
> might not do, it should describe what we will and won't do.
>
> 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."
>
> If the intention is that we in fact do return space to IANA as a
> consequence of this policy then replace "may" with "will" and describe
> the criteria for which space returned to ARIN will be subsequently be
> returned to IANA.
>
> 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
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:54:41 -0500
> From: "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com>
> To: "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us>,  "Scott Leibrand"
>        <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> Cc: PPML <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Update on 2009-3: Global Policy for the
>        Allocationof IPv4 Blocks to RIRs
> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601F49D89 at mail>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> >
> > Let's parse that: Each RIR [...] may [...] designate any such space
> > for return to the IANA.
> >
> > I object to the intentionally ambiguous and potentially dishonest use
> > of the word "may" here. Policy should not describe what we might or
> > might not do, it should describe what we will and won't do.
>
> I agree.  Without an explicitly associated 'must' or 'may not' then 'may'
> is
> meaningless.  The same applies to "is permitted" or "should".  We don't
> need
> rules to allow anything that is not otherwise proscribed.
>
> Anything that does not describe a requirement or an exception is just
> excess
> verbiage.
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: smime.p7s
> Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
> Size: 3224 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090724/cbe35cde/attachment-0001.bin
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2009 14:55:18 -0500
> From: "Kevin Kargel" <kkargel at polartel.com>
> To: "PPML" <ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: [arin-ppml] FW: Update on 2009-3: Global Policy for the
>        Allocationof IPv4 Blocks to RIRs
> Message-ID: <70DE64CEFD6E9A4EB7FAF3A06314106601F49D8A at mail>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
>
> >
> > Let's parse that: Each RIR [...] may [...] designate any such space
> > for return to the IANA.
> >
> > I object to the intentionally ambiguous and potentially dishonest use
> > of the word "may" here. Policy should not describe what we might or
> > might not do, it should describe what we will and won't do.
>
> I agree.  Without an explicitly associated 'must' or 'may not' then 'may'
> is
> meaningless.  The same applies to "is permitted" or "should".  We don't
> need
> rules to allow anything that is not otherwise proscribed.
>
> Anything that does not describe a requirement or an exception is just
> excess
> verbiage.
> -------------- next part --------------
> A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
> Name: smime.p7s
> Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
> Size: 3224 bytes
> Desc: not available
> URL: <
> http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090724/d161873f/attachment.bin
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML mailing list
> ARIN-PPML at arin.net
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>
> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 49, Issue 15
> *****************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090724/451ca71d/attachment.htm>