[arin-ppml] Use of "reserved" address space.

[Kevin Oberman]

> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 18:35:52 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Roger Marquis <marquis at roble.com>
> Sender: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> 
> > On Jun 29, 2010, at 6:30 PM, Roger Marquis wrote:
> >> We would be happy to deploy more NAT, including LSN,
> >> if it means a smooth transition to IPv6, especially if it
> >> also means some responsible organization will someday take responsibility
> >> for A) the inevitable process of reclaiming unused legacy allocations,
> >> and B) denying new allocations to entities who can use NAT/LSN but are
> >> not.  Doesn't look like ARIN or the IETF is capable of being that
> >> organization though.
> >
> > Roger -
> >
> >  ARIN is responsible, but that's for the implementation of number
> >  resource policy which is actually adopted by the community.  If
> >  you want that policy to include unused legacy resource reclamation
> >  or no allocations for organizations which can make use of NAT/LSN,
> >  then you need to introduce policy proposals to that end.
> >
> >  (See https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_appendix_b.html regarding
> >   submitting policy proposals)
> 
> Thanks for the pointer John.   The crux of this impasse, however, is the
> community vote.  Those with a financial interest in address exhaustion
> and their proxies currently have a majority.  Even something as clean as
> Proposal 112 doesn't stand a chance.

You appear to not understand how ARIN operates. If you read the policy
process, you might notice that "voting" as not a part of the
process. Like the IETF, ARIN operates largely by "rough consensus". The
Board of Trustees and the AC look to the public (not membership) for
input and direction. It is up to those bodies (and, in the end, the BoT)
make the decision based on legal, technical and practical analysis of
the proposal. 

The single most significant input is probably legal. If the lawyers say
it's not legal, it won't happen. Second is technical. If the AC says
that the proposal is not something that can be technically implemented
or the implementation would break things, the proposal will likely be
rejected. These seldom become issues, but have on occasion.

The main driver is public input. Again, public, not member. Input comes
from this list. It comes from attendees at meetings, and from those
participating remotely. During meetings, polls are taken, not "votes",
as guidance to the AC. The AC almost always has recommended policies to
the BoT based on this input. Again, this is completely open to the
public. Anyone may participate. 

While you felt that 112 was a clean proposal that was a no-brainer, it
was clear that there was little support for the policy. It was
abandoned.

I agree that this is not a perfect system, but I don't know what could
be better. You are clearly not keen on "votes". There is no barrier to
participation by anyone with network access. It looks about as open as
it can be.

Feel free to recommend changes, but do not assume that:
1. You are always right
2. That those who disagree are doing it because it is of personal
benefit to them or their employers (though it would be silly to deny
that it often is).
-- 
R. Kevin Oberman, Network Engineer
Energy Sciences Network (ESnet)
Ernest O. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (Berkeley Lab)
E-mail: oberman at es.net			Phone: +1 510 486-8634
Key fingerprint:059B 2DDF 031C 9BA3 14A4  EADA 927D EBB3 987B 3751