[arin-ppml] Curious about consensus
bicknell at ufp.org
Mon Apr 25 13:33:22 EDT 2011
In a message written on Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 08:39:39AM -0700, Owen DeLong wrote:
> For example, until recently, it had not occurred to me that
> there was any chance staff would misinterpret our intent in
> 2009-1/8.3 where we expected transferred resources to be
> subject to an RSA, not some form of RSA which might be
> LRSA, RSA, or something staff made up on the fly.
Perhaps this is why the Board should think harder about using the
Emergency PDP and trying to draft policy on their own. If you
recall, when the Board took the action that created 2009-1 we were
less than two months from the community considering 2008-2 at a
meeting where it likely would have passed.
Turning to 2008-2 gives us a more complete record of the AC's
actions. I do remember the AC having discussions about the RSA/LRSA
issue, and I believe some of those were on PPML as well. There was
concern that in addition to the RSA and LRSA, there may be future
In 2008-2's first draft, we see:
The transferor has signed an RSA and/or a legacy RSA covering the
IPv4 addresses transferred.
However, by the time it was abandoned, that language had been changed
The transferee signs (or has previously signed) an RSA covering the
IPv4 addresses transferred.
As for 2009-1, section 8.3 was proposed by the BoT. Here's the BoT's
Number resources may be released, in whole or in part, to ARIN for
transfer to another specified organizational recipient, by any
authorized resource holder within the ARIN region. Such transferred
number resources may only be received by organizations that are within
the ARIN region and can demonstrate the need for such resources in the
exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
The AC proposed a revision that was eventually adopted:
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.
Note that both the Board and the AC, in 2009-1, removed all
requirements on the transferor that were in 2008-2.
There's a host of other potential problems, and one needs look no
further than 2008-2 to find them. The AC put a lot of thought and work
into that which the BoT decided to ignore when drafting 2009-1. For
instance, from 2008-2:
If the transferor elects to retain a portion of a block pursuant to
8.3.6, rather than transferring an entire block, the transferor must
sign (or have previously signed) a RSA or LRSA covering the retained portion.
There's no such requirement in 2009-1.
2009-1 was bad policy top to bottom. Why the BoT chose to ignore
2008-2 and strike out on their own at the 11th hour still mystifies
me. Why the community didn't raise more of a stink really surprises
me. The result though is that we have a half-baked transfer policy
that's full of issues. The Microsoft-Nortel deal will only be the
first, there are many ways to abuse the existing policy.
In this case I don't hold the AC much responsible though, the Board
put them between a rock and a hard place basically telling them to
either rubber stamp it, or if they took their time with it the Board
would just continue to go around them in the Emergency PDP.
Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available
More information about the ARIN-PPML