[arin-ppml] [arin-council] Returning Legacy Space to IANA. Attorney client communcation.

[John Curran]

On Jun 5, 2009, at 11:10 PM, Randy Bush wrote:

>> in san antonio, jcurran described the return-to-IANA policy for
>> recovered space as a "land grab".
>
> it isn't.  it is a test by lacnic to show that the arin region is  
> run by
> self-serving imperialist yanquis.

Since I'm being quoted out of context, this looks to be timely place
to respond.  I was one of the RIR Board members involved in drafting
the earliest version of this proposal, and I said to the AC the same
thing I said to my coauthors at the time, i.e. this proposal may not
get any actual usage, since the probability of large amounts of IPv4
returned space is low, and it's going to look like a "land grab" to
the very folks we're trying to entice to return unused IPv4 space.

> they believe, rightly or wrongly, that the us military will return,
> under a deal made with arin, a large amount of ipv4 space in return  
> for
> the blocking of an amazing amount of ipv6 space.  lacnic, and others,
> believe that, should this occur, that ipv4 space should be shared by
> all.
>
> so this proposal is a litmus test.  you are failing.

It certainly wasn't designed as a litmus test, it was written to
address a perceived theoretical inequality issue handling returned
IPv4 space. The real question that arises from this sort of policy
are whether it's actually appropriate to release space if there are
RIR's who have departed from need-based allocation and/or established
markets for monetization of these resources...

/John
John Curran
Acting President and CEO
ARIN