[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-154 Shared Space for IPv4 Address Extension (w/IETF considerations) - Staff Comments

[John Curran]

On Jul 2, 2011, at 9:04 AM, William Herrin wrote:

> Respectfully, when quoting part 7 of the PDP's scope section, I think
> you may have overlooked parts 1 through 6. It starts by stating what's
> included in policy: "Policies developed through the PDP are community
> self-regulatory statements that mandate or constrain actions." It goes
> on to elaborate the specific subset of this which is excluded.

"The ARIN PDP is the process by which all policies governing the management 
of Internet number resources in the ARIN region are developed by and for 
the ARIN community. "

  and 

"Policies developed through the PDP do not describe a step-by-step 
process.  Such a process is a called a procedure."

  and

"Internet number resource policies are distinctly separate from ARIN 
 general business practices and procedures. ARIN's general business 
 practices (including fees) and procedures are not within the purview 
 of the Policy Development Process"
 
> However, nothing in the PDP or bylaws precludes the policy-level
> requirement that ARIN solicit activity from another standards body.

You wish ARIN to reserve a /10 block, then advise the IETF of the block, 
and then work with the IETF to determine appropriate constraints on the
use of the block, and then publish an RFC with the results.

This appears to me to be an implementation procedure, not a policy for
management of Internet number resources. 

> You can't have it one way last time and the other way this time.
> That's called "arbitrary and capricious." So make up your mind -- do I
> offer policy proposals as the modify current policy understanding that
> the overlap will be discarded if the other policy is adopted, or do I
> offer policy proposals as they modify policy and other current
> proposals?

You would work with the AC to modify the current Draft Policy accordingly.

However, in this particular case, the Draft Policy is no longer with the 
ARIN AC, it is with the ARIN Board.  

> If the board faithfully follows the PDP, it will most likely remand
> 2011-5 to the AC for further development in light of the IAB's
> comments.

It easily could do that, in which case the Draft Policy could be changed
to more completely explain how the /10 address block should be managed.
Instructions to ARIN to implement particular actions not pertaining to 
the management of Internet number resources are not Internet number resource 
policy, particularly when the proposal contains instructions on how to 
interact with another organization which is already covered by existing
agreements. It is up to the ARIN Board of Trustees to provide guidance
in such matters.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN