[arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?

Matthew Pounsett matt at conundrum.com
Sun Nov 13 09:42:25 EST 2011

On 2011/11/10, at 15:54, William Herrin wrote:

> 2. The draft presented at the meeting required the parties to "meet
> both RIR's policies." The current draft guts that requirement,
> demanding each party meet only one part of one RIR's requirements. The
> PPM draft was vague. You might have understood it to intend what the
> revision offered. But some portion, possibly a majority of the
> community understood it differently and based their consent on the
> requirement that folks receiving addresses from ARIN meet at least as
> stringent policy requirements regardless of which region they're in.

If you recall, I got up to the mic to ask about this point specifically.  You're correct that the wording of the proposal required both RIR's policies to be met, but the language implied to me that wasn't the intent.  I asked for clarification, and the clarification we received was that the wording was flawed, and the intent was that each party should meet the relevant requirements of their local RIR (i.e. the transferor meets the requirements of a transferor in their region, and the recipient meets the requirements of a recipient in their region).  

To my recollection, nobody spoke out against this stated intent of the language, and nobody spoke out in favour of keeping the current wording.  In the end, the community gave the support previously indicated in the show of hands.  

I interpret that as the community supporting the intended meaning, rather than the flawed wording.  To me that is sufficient justification for the AC to clarify that wording prior to last call.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list