[arin-ppml] ARIN Multiple Discrete Networks Policy

[John Curran]

On Oct 1, 2011, at 2:59 PM, Jimmy Hess wrote:
> 
> Something needs to determine if there is a compelling reason.
> The most obvious would be a business need for discrete networks
> created by a technical requirement.
> 
> I don't think it's necessarily reasonable/possible to codify every
> feasible situation in which multiple discrete networks are called for.
> 
> This is an engineering decision which should be handled based on sound
> technical merits.

Presumably any organization which decided to deploy multiple discrete 
networks had sound technical merits to do so, so the existence of them 
under some clear definition suffices as proof of the "compelling need". 
If this is what the community wants, then a very simple change to policy 
is needed, and the administration of the policy becomes quite routine.

> Since ARIN staffs'  job is to examine the application, not to review
> technical decisions,
> Perhaps what ARIN should do is provide an option for an "independent
> technical review"
> of the merits for an organization operating discrete networks, instead
> of one network;
> where the applicant would be required to find a "reviewer"  mutually
> agreed upon by
> ARIN and the applicant,   who would then be required to perform a
> review, and submit their
> findings directly to ARIN,  keeping them confidential from the applicant.
> 
> Then instead of staff making an arbitrary judgement call;  they would
> be relying on the integrity
> of the reviewer.      "Independent"  would imply  the reviewer has no
> relationship with the applicant.

Interesting suggestion.  If the policy requires a judgement call, moving
it to a third-party doesn't change to potential for disagreement of views
between those evaluating and the requestor (and an rejected applicant need 
only reapply and seek a different reviewer)  I think there's some merit to
the approach (e.g. a panel of reviewers for appeals?) but there's a lot of
details (non-disclosures, competitive information, etc) that would need to 
be considered.

Elimination of relative judgement situations in the policy would be a far
easier solution, but it's worth thinking of various alternatives should the
policy remain as-is.

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN