[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2010-10 - Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion

[David Farmer]

On 8/30/10 16:54 CDT, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 30, 2010 at 15:29, David Farmer<farmer at umn.edu>  wrote:
>> This isn't going to fly in APNIC.  APNIC will not agree to the no transfer
>> provision.  Furthermore, as currently written it sets up a winner take all
>> race to the bottom, a maximum allocation size would be an easy to fix this
>> without making things to complicated.
>
> The no-transfer provision is essential. Without it, a region with a
> very liberal / non-needs-based transfer policy can potentially suck
> all of the remnants into their region and sell them off.
>
> As one of the authors of this proposal I can say without a doubt that
> I would withdraw my support for (and vehemently oppose) it sans that
> provision.

Chris, I can appreciate you position on this.  However, I can assure 
that a number of the authors of the previous global policy proposal 
thought that a mandatory requirement for return was equally important.

I believe the essential portion of this policy is for IANA to have the 
ability to allocate any address space that is returned to it, not just /8s.

What address space an RIR returns, if any, or placing restrictions on 
what can be done with the space once it is allocated to an RIR is and 
should be a local policy concern.

I must admit that I would prefer that APNIC transfer policy was needs 
based, but that is and should be the APNIC community's choice.  Just as 
how ARIN should deal with address space returned to it should be the 
ARIN community's choice.

If we can focus on the essential functions of IANA and stay out of all 
local policy issues, I think we might have a policy that can be passed 
globally.

>> During the afternoon tea break on Friday, Owen and had a conversation with,
>> Gaurab Raj Upadhaya (the new sig-policy chair for APNIC), Philip Smith, and
>> Filiz Yilmaz (from RIPE), and Leslie stopped by for a bit too. Leslie did
>> not comment on policy, but it was very helpful to have someone who had
>> actually interacted with IANA involved in the conversation.
>>
>> The consensus of those gathered was that a very simple policy was needed,
>> focusing on IANA.  It should allow IANA to accept returns of /24 or large
>> blocks. (no requirements for return by RIRs or anyone else for that matter).
>>   Then allow IANA to allocate on a needs basis to the RIRs with a minimum
>> block size /24 and no more than the equilivant of a /10 at one time.
>>
>> The /10 at a time limit is intended to prevent a winner takes all race to
>> the bottom and allow some possibility that a larger block could be shared
>> between multiple RIRs without having addresses set idle if an RIR needs
>> them.
>>
>> So my question to the rest of the AC, how should we proceed, keep text that
>> we know will not succeed as global policy or change text?  What would it
>> take to make a radical change to the Draft Policy?  Otherwise, we would need
>> to come to the next meeting with new text which likely be past IANA run-out.
>
> I disagree that radical changes are needed. Simply adding a maximum
> allocation to the existing proposal would accomplish this.
>
>>
>> Comments, rotten fruit, etc...
>
> I can tell you that the group of co-authors who introduced this policy
> are actively reviewing and discussing all feedback from APNIC and plan
> to work with the AC Shepherds to make any edits necessary before the
> text is frozen.

Please do revise the text


-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================