[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-1: Waiting List for Unmet IPv4 Requests
tedm at ipinc.net
Thu Jan 28 15:14:06 EST 2010
Owen DeLong wrote:
>> "...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.
> That line states "...maintained in the [ARIN database]..." and was intended
> to represent ANY resources under ARIN administrative jurisdiction whether
> or not abandoned. It is not intended, nor do I believe staff has interpreted
> it to mean abandoned resources cannot be audited or reclaimed under
> section 12.
>> Clauses like this are very common in business contracts (decent
>> ones, anyway)
>> The section 3.6.1, implementation of which is in-process, is the
>> operative section that deals with the issue that George mentioned.
>> Technically, ARIN is within compliance of the NRPM at this time, since
>> Section 12 is optional, and Section 3.6.1 is pending implementation in
>> the NRPM.
> Both are tools. Section 3.6.1 provides for detection and identification
> of abandoned resources. Section 12 provides for the reclamation of
> underutilized resources regardless of the method used to identify or
> detect them.
Correct - keep in mind though that while abandoned resources are
underutilized resources, underutilized resources are not abandoned
By definition an abandoned resource does not have an organization
that is defending a claim on it, and it is a waste of time to attempt to
"reclaim" it through any review/reclamation procedures that Section
12 may outline.
I mean, for goodness sake, if no POC on a resource is valid, how is
ARIN supposed to "solicited information from the resource holder"
(that's right out of section 12) when there's no valid contact for
a resource holder?
> (This is just my own opinion, not an official statement from ARIN or
> the AC).
More information about the ARIN-PPML