[arin-ppml] FW: Proposal: Clarification of draft policy 2009-3 (ARIN-prop-135)

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Tue Feb 22 04:13:49 EST 2011

On Feb 21, 2011, at 9:00 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 6:42 PM, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 6:02 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>>> Correct.  Make the intent of the policy clear and unambiguous.  I believe the AC is working on that presently.
>>> /John
>> I'd like to raise my voice in SUPPORT of the policy proposal to render explicit
>> the set of IPv4 addresses being returned to IANA as "{}".
>> Matt
> To clarify, as I've gotten some questions about my stance;
> those addresses which were allocated by IANA to ARIN for
> the region, I believe should stay within the region.
> Address blocks *not* allocated by IANA to ARIN, namely
> address blocks assigned to "legacy" holders should be returned
> whence they came, if they are freed up, namely to IANA, as those
> never passed through ARIN's hands in the first place.
Most blocks you describe were not allocated by IANA to their
current holders, but, rather by ARIN's predecessors, the SRI
Internic and the NSI Internic, neither of which exists for those
blocks to be returned to.

Care to clarify your stance in light of those facts?


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list