[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 2:18 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>
>
> On 11/1/11 12:24 CDT, Martin Hannigan wrote:

[ clip]

>
>>> 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.
>
> Yes ARIN-2010-10 did receive overwhelming support in the ARIN Region, but it
> utterly failed in all the other regions that bothered to take it up, a
> couple decided to drop it simply because it had already been dropped in
> other regions.

That would be incorrect. The authors opted to drop it in a few
regions, one region played politics with it and blocked it and
probably violated their own PDP in doing so and it did not gain
consensus in another.

>
>> 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.
>
> Actually, I'm fine with removing the change to the rationale, but I would

Personally, I think that the damage has already been done and it's not
relevant at this point whether you remove it or not.

> like to see a valid consensus on the list for that, since it didn't come up
> at the PPM.   Should I count you in support of removing the change to the
> Rationale?  That could be inferred from your statement, but it doesn't
> clearly say that.


You can count me in support of good, solid, Internet numbering policy.
This would not be one.

Best,

-M<