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

[Matthew Petach]

On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 1:13 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>
> 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?
>
> Owen


SRI Internic and NSI Internic were both global organizations, not
regional, correct?  In that sense, they filled a similar role as IANA,
serving as a global allocation point, rather than a regional allocation
point.  Fundamentally, I think if resources were allocated from the
global pool to a regional registry, they become the responsibility of
that region.  If they were assigned from the global pool directly to
an entity, upon return, they should go back into the global pool.
Seems pretty straightforward that way.

Matt