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

[William Herrin]

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 4:03 AM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
> On Jul 2, 2011, at 9:04 AM, William Herrin wrote:
>> 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.

John,

That's not actually what paragraph 2 says. It says two separate things. First:

"ARIN shall advise the IETF of the /10 reserved and shall request that
the IETF determine issues associated with using the /10 as described,
set appropriate constraints on the use of the block and publish an RFC
documenting the block's recommended use."

This would mean the same thing if I rewrote it as, "ARIN shall ask the
IETF to create an RFC." I used more words to make the request clearer
but it means the same thing. The word "then" doesn't appear in my text
and isn't meant to be implied by it.

A procedure is a series of steps while a policy is a set of parameters
for creating procedures. This isn't a series of anything. It's one
thing. The IETF makes an RFC. They get to turn that into steps and
they know how to do that.


The second thing paragraph 2 says is:

"ARIN shall make manpower and other resources available to the IETF as
necessary to facilitate such activity."

This is an authorization to provide resources to the IETF should the
IETF need them to fulfill the request to make an RFC. It's not a step
in a procedure, it's an authorization to create procedures. A policy
by any other name.


>> 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.

And the procedure for doing that is what, exactly? How about drafting
a proposal and letting the AC merge in whatever parts it likes? Does
that sound like it might be a legitimate procedure for "working with
the AC to modify a draft?"


> Instructions to ARIN to implement particular actions not pertaining to
> the management of Internet number resources are not Internet number resource
> policy,

I would say that RFC1918 pertains to the management of Internet number
resources. Wouldn't you? So how exactly would asking the IETF to
create an RFC governing a new shared space fail to pertain to the
management of Internet number resources?


> particularly when the proposal contains instructions on how to
> interact with another organization which is already covered by existing
> agreements.

Although I don't believe anything in 154 violates any agreements that
ARIN has with anybody else, I note that while breaches of law, bylaws
and articles of incorporation are called out as excluded from policy
proposals, incompatibility with third-party Memorandums of
Understanding is not. Perhaps this was an oversight, but until the PDP
is changed to say different I choose to see it as wisdom: changes in
policy should compel a renegotiation of MoU's where appropriate rather
than a succession of behind-the-scenes MoU's boxing ARIN in until
address policy is no longer bottom-up.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


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