[arin-ppml] Summary of 2009-1 discussion so far

Alexander, Daniel Daniel_Alexander at Cable.Comcast.com
Mon Mar 30 18:10:52 EDT 2009

Hello All,

This email is rather long but I wanted to try and summarize some of the
discussion of 2009-1 so far. My apologies if I neglected any particular
comments or if my counts might be off. I was trying to select one or two
points from each of the major issues, and I was consolidating more than
one thread. If you have not done so already, please let the AC know if
you are in favor or against this proposal, or if you have specific
suggestions as to how the wording should be changed.

Dan Alexander

PPML Postings: As of 5pm 3/30

In Favor:

  None stated


  Leo Bicknell
  Kevin Kargel
  Ted Mittelstaedt
  William Herrin
  Seth Mattinen
  Jeremy H Griffith
  Jay Hennigan


1  Dan Alexander
7  Leo Bicknell
1  Cort Buffington (CB)
1  Dale W Carder
3  John Curran
7  Bill Darte
3  Owen DeLong (OD)
4  Michael Dillon
7  David Farmer
1  Jeremy H Griffith (JG)
5  Martin Hannigan (MH)
1  Jay Hennigan
6  William Herrin (WH)
5  Lee Howard (LH)
11 Kevin Kargel
4  Mathew Kaufman
2  Eliot Lear
4  Scott Leibrand (SL)
2  Seth Mattinen (SM)
6  Ted Mittelstaedt
3  Milton L Mueller
4  John Schnizlein
1  Michael K Smith
1  Stephen Sprunk
2  Bill Woodcock

Notable Points:

Recurring questions of clarity and procedure. 
	Why did the BoT use the Emergency PDP? 
	Where is the proper explanation in the meeting minutes? 
	What was the emergency?
	Why was this needed?
	Is 2008-6 actually accepted and just not implemented?

(OD) "The same argument could be made about laws with sunset clauses,
but, the same applies.  While it is true that the community can change
things and could even repeal a sunset clause, the sunset clause creates
a default action that occurs unless the community takes action.
Additionally, repealing a policy, even
if there is strong community consensus to do so, takes time.  By having
a sunset clause in place, it clearly indicates that the intent of the
community is for the policy to be temporary and short-term in nature,
and, it creates a default action of removing the policy after some
period of time, rather than requiring additional subsequent action by
the community to do so."

(LB) "In broad terms, sunset provisions can be used for two purposes:
- To reduce future workload on a body where it is expected the item
  will no longer be useful at some point.  Rather than having to waste
  time removing old policy it automatically goes.
- To require a body to re-evaluate an item via the normal debate
  process in the future because the current authors are worried
  the plan is not yet perfect, and/or the situation may change."

(WH) "2008-06 intentionally sunsetted section 8.4 three years after
adoption. This was no accident: the community has long been suspicious
of processes that effectively permit the sale of IP addresses from one
party to another. We're willing to give it a chance, but if we don't
like what we see, we don't want to have to fight again to take the
policy back out... especially with the board hinting it might try
sketchy procedural maneuvers in order to overrule such an effort."

(WH) "Under normal ARIN policy, any legal entity which can justify its
request may receive number resources. Though normally companies or other
organizations, this does occasionally apply to individuals. AS 11875 for
example. 2009-1 restricts the transfer recipients to "organizations."
2008-6 retains ARIN's broader definition of eligible recipients."

(JG) "So far I have seen *NO* support for this policy.  Zero.
Zip.  If it goes forward anyway, it will be very clear that the ideas of
"consensus" and "community policy" are mere travesties, to be discarded
whenever the BOT finds that convenient."

(WH) "Should the board elect to promptly withdraw proposal 2009-1, let's
say by close of business Friday, it would be my pleasure to resubmit the
text of the proposal to the normal policy process and serve as the
proposal's author."

(SM) "Lack of interest in entities adopting IPv6 is not ARIN's
emergency. It's a business case issue, as in many orgs see no business
case for putting forth the effort to deploy IPv6 in their networks, not
an "emergency"."

(CB) "Emergency? I think so. But I don't think that the majority of the
networking community will choose to deal with this until it reaches
crisis state. By the time we reach crisis, the problem will be too big
to worry about pointing fingers. As usual in the US, those who were
responsible enough to deal with it before it became and emergency will
see no benefit since there will be some kind of either bailout, or
social acceptance of the crisis and the half-baked solutions that will
come with waiting until two weeks past the very last date to reasonable
address the issue." 

(LH) "The sense of the Board is that a transfer policy is needed well
before IANA's last IPv4 allocation, to allow early transfers and ease
the demand for IPv4 numbers from ARIN.  Allowing for the possibility
that demand might increase as IANA allocates its last IPv4 numbers, the
Board believes that there is insufficient time for another full policy
cycle.  The policy in 2008-6 allowed the Board to activate it by
declaring an emergency, which the Board did. The policy had certain gaps
which, in the Board's opinion, allowed for exploitation.  As noted in
the minutes of the February 6 meeting, the Board resolved to make
certain edits to the policy that  had just been adopted. These edits
were out of order: according to ARIN's Policy Development Process, the
Board of Trustees may (in emergency circumstances) suspend a policy or
propose a policy, but may not edit the Number Resource Policy Manual
directly.  Therefore, at its March 18, 2009 meeting, the Board rescinded
its action editing the policy, and proposed a new policy, which is
2009-1: Transfer Policy.  The minutes of that meeting will be published
once Board members have reviewed them, according to the published


(MH) "Number resources are issued based on justified need to
organizations and not to individuals that represent those organizations.
Upon notification that a major negative event related to the
Corporations solvency [define these in definitions] has occurred, ARIN
will freeze all assigned  provider independent "PI" address space,
ASN's, and affiliated resources deemed necessary to protect ARIN
assigned number resources and their disposition. Changes to these
resources during the negative event will be processed in a manner
consistent with ARIN policy and agreements in effect at the time of the
negative event".

(SL) "I heard a number of people express the opinion that we don't want
to set a permanent precedent allowing transfers of IPv6 (and ASN).  Both
2008-2 and 2008-6 were very explicit that transfers were only being
allowed as a result of the extraordinary circumstance of IPv4
exhaustion, and that such transfers would not be allowed for any other
type of number resource. I believe it would be appropriate to restore
such a limitation to section 8.3 of 2009-1."

(WH) "The changed text in 8.2 implies that a transfer of resources will
not be permitted except as a result of a merger or acquisition. Does
this rule out any kind of transfer that was previously permitted? If so,

(WH) "The original use of the word "effecting" was correct. The
instrument(s) effecting the transfer of assets. You don't affect a
change, you effect a change. The use of the word "affecting" in 2009-1
is incorrect."

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list