[arin-ppml] 2009.10.22 ARIN 24 meeting notes, day 2, part 1

[Joe Maimon]

Matt,

Thank you for the continued effort you put into these running notes. I 
have copied and pasted the remote comments I made to attempt to clarify 
any missing holes there.


Matthew Petach wrote:


> 
> 
> OK, back to policy:
> draft policy 2009-5: multiple discrete networks
> allows IPv6 initial and subsequent allocations for
>  discrete networks within single org.
> 


> Joe Maimon, remote comment; policy as written appears
> to prevent opening the floodgates,...[I lose last part,
> as scott is speaking too quietly and quickly to make out.]

(10:16:05 AM) jmaimon: The policy as written appears to take steps to 
prevent the opening of the floodgates, and as such I support it, with 
the caveat that if the restriction on single aggregate advertisement is 
removed, technical justification why that would not suit for 
applications under this policy should at that point be added.



> 
> Draft 2009-3: Global policy, allocation of
> Similar in every region but ARIN; adopted in other regions
> or in discussion.
> Does it help to have a global policy that's different
> in each region?


> 
> Joe Maimon CHL--if ARIN is only one to adopt with optional
> "may" clause, won't other RIRs call foul?

(11:45:23 AM) jmaimon: If ARIN is the only one who adopts this policy 
but with optional return, wont all the other RIR's cry foul? Why should 
any RIR want to return space if they dont have to?


> 
> John notes that ARIN "won't" return space due to "may"
> clause, it simply doesn't mandate it.  Historically in
> this region, we've returned space; but that's no
> guarantee of future behaviour.


> 
> John at rear mike--the perception that the RIR system
> of separate regions with bottom up policy building
> is incapable of fairly sharing across the globe is
> used in arguments that are detrimental to the RIRs.
> There may not be much of this space to return
> anyhow; it may be that more damage is done to the
> structure of the RIR system by worrying about the
> possiblity that some space may move away from ARIN
> than actually having space move.


(12:01:27 PM) jmaimon: I believe without mandatory return, the policy is 
likely to have little potential harm but it also may be useless under 
scarcity pressure. On the chance that voluntary return would continue, I 
support the policy. I would also support a policy that required return 
of returned space that exceeded the RIR's 6 or 12 month supply needs. As 
per Martin's concern, perhaps the distribution of returned space should 
factor in the RiR consumption needs.

In response to public perception, the fact ithat legacy+unavailable is 
almost 50% of the pie is a fairly significant one.

 >
 >
 >

Joe