[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-131: Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses
heather.skanks at gmail.com
Wed Feb 9 15:10:01 EST 2011
I had the same thought and looked at 2011-1 before I suggested the
text. The pending global transfer proposal text appears to be
registrant to registrant. So, if one returns legacy space to ARIN
under prop 131, they aren't attempting to transfer it to an
organization in a foreign RIR.
I guess I see prop 131 as what to do in case 2009-3 doesn't go global.
Yes, the ARIN BoT adopted it, but it's contigent on ratification by
Is 2011-1 the pending transfer proposal you are referring to?
On Wed, Feb 9, 2011 at 12:32 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
> Is this language too specific considering pending transfer proposal(s)
> or do you think transfer is not relevant? I think the latter myself,
> but interested in your thought on this.
> On 2/9/11, Heather Schiller <heather.skanks at gmail.com> wrote:
>> how about:
>> ".... legacy resources returned to ARIN will be made available for
>> distribution in the ARIN region."
>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 3:10 PM, cja at daydream.com <packetgrrl at gmail.com>
>>> Let's be clear this is not "ARIN speak". This is RIR speak. If you
>>> a better alternative to distinguish between addresses that are given out
>>> be further assigned to customers as opposed to blocks given that are
>>> intended not to be further delegated then feel free to make a suggestion.
>>> Most of us would love a workable alternative.
>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:54 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 12:02 PM, cja at daydream.com <packetgrrl at gmail.com>
>>>> > On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 9:58 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com>
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >> Do you think that this will suffice?
>>>> >> "Upon expiration of the hold period and in the absence of a Global
>>>> >> Policy or Globally Coordinated Policy directing otherwise, legacy
>>>> >> resources returned to ARIN will be made available for allocation."
>>>> > I think it should say "made available for allocation or assignment"
>>>> Right. Allocation and assignment are loaded words in ARIN-speak. If
>>>> you specify the one but not the other in policy, you restrict the
>>>> usage of those addresses. You could also say something like "made
>>>> available for registration," without using either of the two loaded
>>>> Bill Herrin
>>>> p.s. Yes, I'm sad to report there is in fact an ARIN-speak -- words
>>>> and phrases with special meanings overloaded on the plain English,
>>>> meanings that tend to obstruct outsiders' understanding both in the
>>>> debate and the policy documents. This is unfortunate since it harms
>>>> ARIN's accessibility to the public, but that's a crusade for another
>>>> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
>>>> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>>>> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML