[arin-ppml] Integrating Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 into NRPM 8.3

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Fri May 27 12:52:18 EDT 2011


On May 27, 2011, at 12:06 PM, Mike Burns wrote:
 This is similar to when I pointed out that section 12 of the NRPM would not give ARIN the right to revoke addresses for utilization as it is written now, and John proffered RFC2050 as providing that justification, which is lacking in the current NRPM language.

That is like using the Declaration of Independence to make a legal finding absent from the Constitution. Sure it can give guidance, but the actual rules are better clearly established in the NRPM, if that is an option.

Mike -

    My full response on the topic of NRPM 12 is attached, and I disagree with
    your summary above to the effect that the present language in the NRPM
    is insufficient to support reclamation to bring into compliance.

    Organizations which no longer meet the criteria by which they were
    assigned resources (including utilization criteria contained in ARIN
    policy) are indeed out of compliance with ARIN policy and could
    technically be required to returned their number resources.   As I noted,
    before, I am unaware of ARIN performing reclamation against  any
    organization acting in good faith under such circumstances, but it
    would technically be a valid course of action.

    In light of the specified transfer policy, it might be helpful for the
    community to clarify the use of NRPM 12 with respect to utilization,
    but ARIN staff will our best to implement the policies as adopted.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN


Begin forwarded message:

From: John Curran <jcurran at arin.net<mailto:jcurran at arin.net>>
Date: May 10, 2011 2:22:16 PM EDT
To: Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com<mailto:mike at nationwideinc.com>>
Cc: "arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>" <arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Proposal for Needs-Free IPv4 Transfers

On May 10, 2011, at 11:01 AM, Mike Burns wrote:

Can you elaborate some?

If I were allocated a /18 in 2002 order to host websites, and I have sold or lost the customers but retain the corporation, could my resources be reviewed and revoked per NRPM section 12 without recourse to the RSA section 8?

Yes, see below.

My reading of it says no, section 12 does not give ARIN the right to request a return for under-utilization only.
I think this is the salient section, 12.4:
"Organizations found by ARIN to be materially out of compliance with current ARIN policy shall be requested or required to return resources as needed to bring them into (or reasonably close to) compliance."
In my example, what current ARIN policy would I be materially out of compliance with?
ARIN policy talks quite a bit about utilization, but always in the context of a new allocation, not the utilization of a prior allocation outside that context.

While the criteria are provided in context of a new allocation, the actual
IP assignment or allocation remains "valid as long as the criteria continues
to be met" (RFC 2050).  The RFC 2050 guidance is specifically included per
NRPM 4.1.7 (IPv4 General Principles).

I'm unaware of ARIN performing reclamation against any organization acting
in good faith under such circumstances, but it would technically be a valid
course of action.

Of course, the RSA section 8 would provide this authority as a result of its "compliance with intended purposes" language.

Correct.

My concern was that I thought section 12 was toothless in this regard, so I left it unmodified in my proposal and instead modified the RSA, which I now know is not possible via this policy proposal mechanism.
However, in order to have a viable proposal to eliminate needs requirements for transfers, like APNIC, it is clear that whatever agreement is required of transfer recipients must not have utilization review language in it, or it would vitiate the whole idea of needs-free transfers, and the whole idea of booking every transaction in whois to maintain its integrity.

Best to make explicit via a policy proposal which states the goal.  We
will amend the agreements accordingly if the draft policy supported by
the community and adopted.

If I make a proposal to change the RSA to remove the language about "intended purposes" via the ARIN ACSP as you indicate, can I make my policy proposal to change NRPM 8.3 linked, or contingent upon, action to change the RSA? Are there any examples of prior policy proposals which required changes to agreements that I can use as guidance?

Nothing is needed other than a simple statement in the policy rationale
that notes that changes to the registration service agreements may be
necessary if the policy is adopted.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net<mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110527/aca72fe8/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list