[arin-ppml] FW: Proposal: Clarification of draft policy 2009-3 (ARIN-prop-135)
owen at delong.com
Tue Feb 22 18:24:34 EST 2011
On Feb 22, 2011, at 12:10 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
> On Feb 22, 2011, at 3:13 AM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> On Feb 21, 2011, at 9:00 PM, Matthew Petach wrote:
>>> 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?
> I can't speak for Matthew. But my understanding is: ARIN's Internic "predecessors"* were contracted by the US Govt to perform the IANA function, and ICANN is currently contracted by the US Govt to perform the IANA function. As such, returning legacy addresses to the IANA/ICANN seems to make sense unless IANA/ICANN would prefer otherwise.
I believe the IANA function was always separate from the InterNIC from the beginning of the InterNIC.
Yes, the IANA was contracted by USG and originally managed the InterNIC contract.
However, this is different from what you state above.
> * - To my knowledge, while ARIN made it possible for NSF to release NSI from their IANA responsibilities, the contract was not novated to ARIN and ARIN has never held a contract for the IANA function. If my understanding is incorrect, I would appreciate pointers to correct background. If my understanding is correct, then claims that ARIN is the "successor" are fairly hollow.
I don't think that is entirely accurate, either.
More information about the ARIN-PPML