[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-1: Waiting List for Unmet IPv4 Requests

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

Stephen Sprunk wrote:
> Ted Mittelstaedt wrote:
>> Stephen Sprunk wrote:
>>> 2007-14, now NRPM section 12, was supposed to address this.  I don't
>>> think there's any new policy needed; we just need to get ARIN more
>>> active in _implementing_ the existing policy.
>> Section 12 wasn't supposed to address this.  Section 12 exists mainly
>> so that if ARIN gets a credible fraud report of an existing address
>> holder that they can commence proceedings to revoke the allocation
>> without having to go to a court and sue the address holder for breach
>> of contract.
> 
> As one of the co-authors of 2007-14--and the one who wrote the majority
> of the text that made it into the final policy--I know _exactly_ what my
> intent was: to give ARIN clear authority to clean up space that was no
> longer justified since my previous suggestion to do so via the ACSP was
> rejected on the basis that ARIN had no such policy authority.
> 

I think section 12 makes that part (giving them the authority) pretty clear.

> Owen's intent may have been different; I'll let him speak to his if he
> so desires.
> 
>> Note the language:
>>
>> "...1.ARIN may review..."
>>
>> The may places this section as an OPTIONAL section, ARIN is not
>> obligated to conduct these reviews.
> 
> Of course; we neither wanted to create an undue burden on staff nor
> create a system where every registrant faced an annual audit of their
> space that would undoubtedly leave ARIN viewed in a similar light to the
> IRS.
> 
> We hoped that giving staff discretion would allow them to develop a
> reasonable internal process for identifying the "low-hanging fruit" to
> review without bothering those that were known (or at least strongly
> suspected) of not holding unused resources.
> 
>> "...usage of any resources maintained in the..."
>>
>> By definition, abandoned IP resources aren't being "maintained" thus
>> they do not fall under this section of the NRPM.  This section only
>> applies to resources that are being actively defended.
> 
> No, it applies to any resources that ARIN maintains a registration for
> in its database.
> 
>> Technically, ARIN is within compliance of the NRPM at this time, since
>> Section 12 is optional, ...
> 
> Yes, they are.  It was our intent and desire that they'd be more active
> than they have been, but the policy does unfortunately allow staff to do
> absolutely nothing if that's what the ARIN President chooses. 

The policy which you wrote.  Since staff can only divine your intent by
what you wrote, when you make it optional, they naturally are going to
decide that your intent was for it to NOT be a mandate.

This is kind of like the parents who tell the children  "Honey you 
really shouldn't eat that cookie" then slap the kid when he eats the
cookie.  The parents think they are giving a command by using 
politically correct language that wraps a directive in a suggestion,
the kid naturally takes it literally and then gets slapped - when in
reality the parent shouldn't have been ambiguous.

This is why whoever started the politically correct movement needs to
be shot on sight.  It has done far more damage in getting people into
the habit of using mealy-mouthed words when they should be saying what
they mean.

> That was
> not my intent.  If the activity level doesn't increase in the somewhat
> near future,

I would not expect that it should.  In fact, I would actively oppose any
"veiled threat" that ARIN staff is misinterpreting Section 12.  I think
that by ignoring section 12 except when they need it, ARIN staff is 
doing EXACTLY what they should be doing - following the NRPM as it is
written.

It's your fault that you made it optional when you intended that it be
mandatory, don't blame ARIN staff for your screwup.

> I'll be submitting a proposal to remove the optional
> nature, 

Please do so.  I would support it.

> but I hope it doesn't come to that because I think that's almost
> as bad as doing nothing.
> 

I want the staff to follow the NRPM.  If the NRPM makes something 
optional, it should be optional.  I do not want some politically correct 
NRPM where you have to substitute "must" every time you see the word 
"should" just because a bunch of garlic-eaters are afraid that someone 
who reads it might get upset about being told what to do.

Ted