[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses - Last Call

[Martin Hannigan]

The addresses intended to be covered by the scope of this proposal are
listed as "Administered by ARIN" in the master registry at ICANN[1].

ICP2[2] has a requirement of non fragmentation through
regionalization. Section 1 seems to clearly state that ICANN defines
that scope, not the RIR's.

The scope of each RIR's intended activity is "the region" as defined
by ICP2.  The legacy assignments made by ICANN are done and have the
agreement of all with respect to ICP2 and eliminates the need for
continued discussions as to who "owns" the address space and if there
is any requirement to return addresses to the IANA. That's supported
by comments that we've received by the community. Note, ICP2 is not
RFC 2050. ICP2 is an agreement that the RIR's signed on to where RFC
2050 is a suggestion that has been voluntarily deferred to.

Making a dependency related to global policy would be contrary to the
expectation of conditions of address use at least in this region and
ICP2 as I've offered above.In my experience with this proposal, the
Global Policy condition contravenes community consensus.

I would prefer that we remove the binding reference to "global
policy". In my opinion, the rational place to address the issue of
redistribution of addresses for any purpose is in regional transfer
policy. If at that time we agree that we have functional community
supported transfer policy, we can move to deprecate this policy.

I *did* vote to move this proposal forward. The reasons why are that I
don't have a high degree of confidence that we'll reach agreement on
related global policy and most importantly wanted to make it clear
that the intention of the community and the resulting message to the
staff and BoT will be clear; the community wants a clear disposition
of the legacy address ownership issue and subsequent use of those
addresses.

1. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space/ipv4-address-space.xml#note1

2. http://www.icann.org/en/icp/icp-2.htm



Best,

-M<


On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 8:03 AM, cja at daydream.com <packetgrrl at gmail.com> wrote:
> Martin
> Could you explain who this text conflicts with ICP2?
> Thanks!
> ----Cathy
>
>