[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-139 No reassignment without network service

[David Farmer]

On 4/8/11 13:21 CDT, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 7, 2011 at 9:56 AM, ARIN<info at arin.net>  wrote:
>> ARIN-prop-139 No reassignment without network service
>> Proposal Originator: Owen DeLong
>>
>> 2.4 Local Internet Registry (LIR)
>>
>> A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that assigns address space
>> exclusively to the users of the network services that it provides. LIRs
>> are Network Service Providers (ISPs or NSPs), whose customers may
>> include end users and/or other ISPs/NSPs.
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> There has been discussion of late as to whether section 2.4 precludes
>> registries which are not ISPs. In the RIPE region, their policy does not
>> currently preclude such registries and there are a number of non-ISP
>> registries which have created significant problems. While there are a
>> few existing organizations in the ARIN region which reassign space
>> without providing connectivity services, these have generally been for
>> the purpose of building exchange points and other such critical
>> infrastructure. As such, current ARIN policy provides mechanisms for
>> such infrastructure organizations to deal directly with ARIN
>
> Hi Owen,
>
> This seems a little excessive for a preventative policy as opposed to
> something intended to correct known abuse. How about something softer,
> like:
>
> "Where a LIR assigns space but does not provide associated network
> connectivity services and the end user of said space qualifies for a
> comparable ARIN assignment, the end user shall have the right to
> convert the registration to a direct ARIN assignment."
>
> That should discourage the profiteers while facilitating more
> reasonable behavior like Scott Helms'.
>
> Regards,
> Bill

I was more or less in support of this proposal, I even helped tweak it a 
little.  But, I just realized something; I think we are picking at the 
wrong set of issues.

This is the just the Definition the word LIR. Definitions are NOT 
irrelevant to Policy, but they should serve to help the reader 
understand and clarify the Policy.  But, If a word needs a super precise 
Definition to achieve the Policy goal then we need to clarify the Policy 
itself, not the Definition of the word.

I'm not sure Section 2.4 is the place to be talking about the 
relationship between the subject of this Definition and the subjects of 
other Definitions.  That is the job of a Policy not a Definition.

Furthermore, I believe staff's current practice is not controlled 
primarily buy the Definition of LIR, in section 2.4, but by their 
interpretation of the Policies in section 4 and 6, more precisely 
sections 4.2.3 Reassigning Address Space to Customers and 6.5.4 
Assignments from LIRs/ISPs.

Statements about who an LIR can and cannot make assignments to (the 
Policy) belong in section 4.2.3 and 6.5.4 not in section 2.4.  If there 
is a problem, perceived or otherwise, we need to be clarifying the 
actual Policy statements in sections 4.2.3 and 6.5.4 not the definition 
of LIR in section 2.4.

It may be tempting to fix this issues by being pedantic about the 
Definition of LIR, but we will be better off if we focus our efforts on 
the actual Policy.

So I suggest maybe we should refocus our efforts away from refining the 
Definition of LIR in section 2.4 and to the Reassignment Policies 
contained in sections 4.2.3 and 6.5.4.

What do you think?
-- 
===============================================
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
===============================================