[arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 70, Issue 141

[Owen DeLong]

On Apr 29, 2011, at 9:29 AM, Matthew Kaufman wrote:

> 
> On Apr 29, 2011, at 8:08 AM, Mike Burns wrote:
> 
>> Torture the language any way you wish, call it "less than ideal", imagine conforming to it through a succession of transfers, claim it only applies to the need assessment. I leave it to the community to decide the meaning of this short paragraph:
>>  
>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA by organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the need for such resources, as a single aggregate, in the exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
>> 
>> You ignore the requirement to return the resources to ARIN, you claim "received as a single aggregate" to mean something other than that, and you break ground in considering an LRSA an RSA.
>> 
>> 
>> I remain unconvinced, and I note that you wish us to continue to believe that the arbitrary assortment of addresses which Microsoft contracted to buy from Nortel prior to ARIN's involvement in the deal turned out to be the exact amount required in the ex post facto needs analysis of the deal.
>> 
> 
> I agree 100% with Mike's reasoning here for why our trust level in ARIN should be lower than it was before this debacle.
> 
> ARIN staff interpretation of the paragraph is wildly different from how the general public interpreted this paragraph. As this is a "policy manual" it is very important that someone who looks up what policy might apply to them be able to understand the policy.
> 
> I intend to submit policy proposals to bring the policy document in line with how things actually work, but as this transfer happened prior to any such edits, it is hard to know where this is on the "honest mistake in interpretation" to "deliberately slippery legal wrangling to avoid the policy requirements" spectrum... but wherever it is, the confidence that ARIN will actually follow the NRPM is reduced by ARIN's behavior in this case.
> 
I would rather see policy to make sure that things work as intended. When I submitted Proposal 139, my intent was to bring policy in line with
current staff practice because believed that current staff practice more closely matched community intent.

In this case, I believe that the common community interpretation of the policy more closely matches the intent and will of the community, so,
I would advocate for policy that better restricted staff to following that intent rather than policy that reflected their current actions.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110429/ca70e552/attachment.htm>