[arin-ppml] NRPN 8.2 & 2.3

[Mike Burns]

>Actually, that is not the case.  Internally, we calculate need based on the 
 information provided and that is more granular than a CIDR boundary.

Yes, the needs assessment is more granular, but since you can't dole out /32s, you round up, isn't that accurate?
And since you seek aggregation, you will always allocate as a single netblock?
I wonder what the rounding error was on that recent Comcast /9.

My example made it clear that the language could be interpreted two ways, why do you say you would need to "reinterpret contrary to the adopted language"?
I, and others, have pointed out that the modification of "be received" by the phrase "in a single aggregate" makes eminent sense and conforms to history.

But interpreting the clause to apply to the "demonstrated need" section of the predicate leaves one scratching one's head.
I mean,. who goes to ARIN and gets justified for anything other than a single aggregate?
Isn't that what Owen was saying he believed the intent to be?

>We follow the policies as written and do not have the freedom reinterpret policy
  contrary to the adopted language.  I indicated this before, but am happy to repeat
  it if that helps you.


Repeating it doesn't help much, I'm afraid.The phrase digging yourself deeper comes to mind.

Regards,

Mike



  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: John Curran 
  To: Mike Burns 
  Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net List 
  Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 5:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] NRPN 8.2 & 2.3


  On May 2, 2011, at 9:57 PM, Mike Burns wrote:


    I don't believe that there has been an answer to those of us who said that while it is grammatically acceptable to decide that a "single aggregate" relates to the needs justification, it is nonsensical to do that, as all needs analyses result in a single aggregate. You don't have a needs analysis at any time where it is found that a need is outside CIDR boundaries. Need assessment has always rounded up to that boundary.


  Mike - 


   Actually, that is not the case.  Internally, we calculate need based on the 
   information provided and that is more granular than a CIDR boundary.


    No, the only way to interpret the language of 8.3 is that the reception of the addresses should occur as a single aggregate, which is clear has not occurred with 8.3.
    To say the staff or the board acted outside of policy is correct in the MS/Nortel case.


    We follow the policies as written and do not have the freedom reinterpret policy
    contrary to the adopted language.  I indicated this before, but am happy to repeat
    it if that helps you.

  Thanks!
  /John


  John Curran
  President and CEO
  ARIn

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110502/379b3f05/attachment.htm>