[arin-ppml] 2009-1 comment

[Kevin Kargel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Farmer [mailto:farmer at umn.edu]
> Sent: Tuesday, May 26, 2009 5:25 PM
> To: arin ppml; Kevin Kargel
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2009-1 comment
> 
> Kevin,
> 
> Section 8.3 is supose to apply only to IPv4, Section 8.2, applies to IPv6,
> and
> ASNs, as well as IPv4.  So do you want 8.3 to apply to IPv6 and ASNs too?
> If we made that change then you would be correct that Section 8.2 would
> superfluous.  But as written in the text recommended by the AC, 8.2 is not
> superfluous, and is very much needed in order to transact transfers for
> IPv6
> and ASNs in the case of change of ownership.

Reading through the text of 2009-1 I don't find the references that say
section 8.2 is for IP and 8.3 is for IPv4 ..

Without the delimiting wording saying "This is for IP and that is for IPv4"
then both sections technically apply to IPvX, regardless of what the
intention was or what it was "supposed" to be.  As written in the text
published at https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_1.html both sections
will apply equally to IPv4 and IPv6, making 8.2 superfluous.

If we rely on the intention then we will all be surprised when in the future
someone says "But it doesn't say that in the NRPM and so as long as I follow
the words in the NRPM I can do what I want.."  We need to be specific and if
we are writing sections to apply to specific protocols then that needs to be
spelled out in the words that are written in those sections.

If I am wrong please point out to me the text that says that 8.3 applies to
IPv4 but not IPv6 or ASN's and 8.2 applies to all IP and ASN's.  I have been
wrong before once or twice, I could be again, but I do not see it in the
text of the proposal.

I want 8.3 to go away.  The rest of the proposal is great.  If we strike 8.3
I will become a staunch supporter of 2009-1.


> 
> On 26 May 2009 Kevin Kargel wrote:
> 
> > Being that 2009-1 is listed as under discussion on ppml on
> > https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html, I want to make
> > another comment.  Section 8-2 is make completely superfluous as any
> > transfers for the purpose of mergers and acquisitions could just as
> > easily be handled under the sell it to anyone you want clauses in
> > section 8-3.
> >
> > If you can sell IP addresses (transfer for monetary consideration if
> > you don't like the word sell) to anyone for any reason, adding
> > criteria to transfer address space for specific purposes already
> > covered by the general clause is unnecessary. Either section 8-2 or
> > 8-3 should be stricken from the proposal, as the inclusion of both is
> > excessive and redundant verbiage.
> 
> 
> ===============================================
> David Farmer                                      Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Office of Information Technology
> Networking & Telecomunication Services
> University of Minnesota		       Phone: 612-626-0815
> 2218 University Ave SE		       Cell: 612-812-9952
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029	       FAX: 612-626-1818
> ===============================================

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090526/97cb4469/attachment.bin>