[arin-ppml] 2011-1: reciprocity NOT required

[William Herrin]

On Wed, Oct 26, 2011 at 11:36 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> Unfair characterization based on the incorrect assumption contained
> above. Perhaps you would do well to go through the APNIC policy
> documents and have a quick read prior to posting broad assumptions
> about what their policies say or do. I am not sure whether APNICs
> current policy would implement reciprocity or not. I will, however,
> ask APNIC staff for guidance on this aspect. I'm inclined to believe
> that it would, actually, but, rather than speculate, I'll post again when
> I have an authoritative answer.

Owen,

Whether they elect to implement reciprocity or not is largely
immaterial. 2011-1 does not require them to as a condition of buying
addresses from ARIN registrants. Nor does it require RIPE or LACNIC to
to newly implement reciprocity as a condition of buying addresses from
ARIN registrants.

And the characterization is not unfair. It's what you get from a rush job.



> This is a relatively lightweight modification to
> the existing proposal to bring it in line with the NRPM

Now who's making an unfair characterization?

> At this point, yes, I believe
> it needs more modification and another last call. I do not believe it
> needs to go all the way back to step 2.

Hard headed.

> In reality, the current policy will result in the CEO making such
> determinations and I am quite sure that he will have board guidance
> in the process (whether he wants it or not).

Thankfully we don't have to guess. We've been told how the policy will
be interpreted: as permitting much of the potential bad behavior I've
described, including the lack of reciprocity.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004