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

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Sat Feb 19 20:11:26 EST 2011

On Sat, Feb 19, 2011 at 11:55 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Feb 19, 2011, at 9:26 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> The global proposal in question, 2009-3, was worded the way it was
>> worded because as a community we anticipated doing exactly what prop
>> 131v3 calls for: giving IANA bupkis. ...
>  That might be your reasoning for why global policy needed to
>  be changed from requiring return to IANA of recovered blocks to
>  optionally designating blocks for return to IANA, but I know
>  that is not a universally held view. [...] I'd point to the staff
> review <https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_3.html>

Hi John,

Here's what I found at that URL:

"[I]t became clear that one of the reasons 2009-3 is such a difficult
policy to get consensus on is that the original policy, as proposed,
requires each RIR to return reclaimed space."

Became CLEAR. Not my words. This is what the author wrote about draft
policy 2009-3 at the time. It goes on:

"[U]nder the revised version of 2009-3, recovered space is returned
after it is designated for return under local policies and strategies.
The original text dictated the terms of what must be returned
(everything /24 or larger) as part of the global policy."

So I'm still UNCLEAR what conflict arises if local policies and
strategies designate -nothing- for return.

>> If the AC intent is that this take effect until "otherwise directed by global
>> policy" then it would be best to say that in Policy Proposal 131.  If the
>> intent is this policy proposal is intended to permanently pre-empt global
>> policy (even once passed) then state something to that effect.   There is
>> a fairly large difference between those two positions.

This is what's really confusing me.

Global policy, when it takes effect, overrides and replaces contrary
local policy. Without exception. The contracts between ARIN, IANA and
the other registries are set up that way and when the BoT ratifies a
global policy ARIN accepts that its local policy options will be bound
by it. I've been repeatedly assured that no pending or active global
policy requires ARIN to return addresses to IANA. So no conflict
arises from stating in local policy that we won't return addresses to

What's more, we supersede local policy with new global and local
policy all the time. It's inherent in the process that any policy can
be replaced if we think of something better and build a consensus
around it.

Why, then, has prop 131 been singled out to do what no other proposal
has been asked to do nor in fact can do: specify whether it should
override global policy?

That makes no sense to me John. None. I dislike the role of conspiracy
theorist, but something smells fishy. As if someone is lying or
there's a hidden piece to the puzzle.

What's the story? Why has prop 131 been singled out for this bizarre
requirement that it state whether it intends to preempt global policy?


William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list