[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-9 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms by the IANA - Last Call

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 12:34 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/1/11 10:07 CDT, William Herrin wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 10:02 AM, David Farmer<farmer at umn.edu>  wrote:
>>>
>>> The formal last call for 2011-9 ends tomorrow.  There haven't been many
>>> comments.
>>>
>>> There has been a total of 8 emails from 5 individuals, 1 in support, 0 in
>>> opposition, 4 with no clear statement of support or opposition.
>>
>> Hi David,
>>
>> What has changed in the proposal since we looked at it six months ago,
>> consented to it provided nothing would be interpreted as requiring or
>> expecting ARIN to return any particular addresses to IANA and were
>> told it was dead in the other regions because it didn't lay out what
>> addresses were expected to be returned?
>
> The following is entirely my personal interpretation of the events, from my
> discussion with people from other regions;
>
> I believe the biggest issue for other regions wasn't that we couldn't
> support mandatory return in global proposal that was ARIN-2009-3, but was a
> procedural objection.  That we changed the text of our proposal rather then
> do a strait up-down vote on the text presented to us.  In other words, they
> wanted us to vote the original proposal down and submit another new
> proposal. That is not what I believe, but my interruption of what others
> believe was our correct course of action in the situation.
>
> Then the objection to ARIN-2010-10 was that it included language about
> transfers and seemed to be a winner take all of the pool, the first one with
> need seemed to get the whole pool.  I believe if we submitted our change
> version of ARIN-2009-3 as a new proposal it might have received a different
> fate that  ARIN-2010-10, but that is Monday morning quarterbacking, and is
> not completely fair.

I think you may not have actually read the proposal then. Unlike this
proposal, it was entirely needs based. If you had more than N, you got
nothing. If you qualifed, you got an equal part. Im not sure how any
RIR with addresses in their pool for years to come would have any
complaint, but they did find them. This proposal is a simple tossing
of the political football. That's already been well established and
acknowledged by most.

>
> This is covered in the rationale of this proposal, minus the implementation
> guidance requesting that the NRO clarify the RFC 2860 issue, especially the
> objections to ARIN-2010-10, but it also includes our objection the the
> original ARIN-2009-3 text.
>
> In my opinion, the question "should ARIN return any address space to IANA"
> is a completely separate local issue, that this global policy recognizes.

All this proposal does is insure that no addresses ever get returned
from the ARIN pool unless the ARIN BoT and staff act unilaterally,
which is the undesired side effect of adopting this proposal. BTW, you
didn't mention that the previous proposal was adopted with
_overwhelming_ support in this community, something that we're unable
to say about this proposal.

At best, the change in the rationale altered the meaning of the
proposal to begin with and invalidates it as a violation of the global
pdp, but we'll see how that works out.


Best,

-M<