[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-178 Regional Use of Resources

[Tony Hain]

David Farmer wrote:
> On 7/14/12 17:32 CDT, Tony Hain wrote:
> > Owen DeLong wrote:
> >> On Jul 14, 2012, at 10:07 AM, Tony Hain wrote:
> ...
> >>
> >> This proposal applies to ASNs and IPv6 resources as well as IPv4.
> >
> > As it should, but there is still no justification for language that
> > attempts to restrict where a resource is used. It is the height of
> > hypocrisy to tell ARIN members that they cannot claim property rights
> > over the assigned resources, yet ARIN has the ability to assert
> > property rights by restricting where an asset gets used. The steward
> > role requires ARIN to watch for duplicate requests to other RIRs for
> > the same need, but the facilitator role requires them to -- actually
> > distribute -- the resources. When the only intent of proposed language
> > is to prevent distribution of resource because someone outside the
> > ARIN region might benefit, it has to be called out and removed as
> > counter to ARINs role as facilitator on behalf of IANA for the global
> resource.
> >
> > As long as a member makes a justified request, and is not duplicating
> > that to get more from other RIRs, where that resource gets deployed is
> > their issue alone. Besides, no matter what policy is put in place it
> > is unenforceable because any resource that gets allocated can be moved
> > later with a 'change of business requirements', and what justifies
> > attempting reclamation? Unless you plan to make every operating
> > network renumber all AS & address resources to be compliant with a
> > regional restriction, there is no 'need' to do so for new deployments;
> > meaning any such policy would not withstand a challenge. The only
> > plausible justification for attempting a protectionist region
> > restriction is hoarding to retain what little pool is left, in a
hypocritical
> contortion of property rights.
> >
> > RIPE will exhaust their remaining IPv4 pool in a couple of  months, so
> > the pressure to do something will increase. Unfortunately people will
> > more often do the irrational thing under pressure, and this
> > protectionist language is already starting down that road. Raising the
> > threat of 'shell companies subverting RIR control' only furthers the
> irrational behavior.
> 
> OK, I slept on it and have an idea.
> 
> I need to reiterate the four requirements I discussed in my last email;
> 
> 1. Regional independence and control of policy
> 
> 2. Only justify the use of resources to the RIR you received them from
using
> that RIRs policies

I mis-read that one the first time. You should only need to justify the
resources you are requesting from the RIR being asked. 

> 
> 3. Prevent duplicate and/or overlapping requests to multiple RIRs, in
other
> words provide stewardship
> 
> 4. No restriction on location of use
> 
> So, I'll float an idea.  What if we allowed the requester to select
between #2
> or #4, allowing #1 and #3 to be meet in all cases.  This way
regionalization is
> simply a tool for simplifying justification of need and not necessarily a
> requirement to receive resources in all cases.
> 
> This could be done with the following small rewrite of the first
paragraph.
> 
> ----
> 
> X. Regionalized Use of Resources
> 
> Requests for number resources must meet the following criteria regarding
> regionalized use of resources for ARIN to only evaluate a request based on
> an organizations ARIN registered resources and according to ARIN policies,
> including any resource specific criteria. Otherwise, ARIN must evaluate a
> request based on an organizations total globally registered resources and
> only according to ARIN policies, including any resource specific criteria.
> 
> ----
> 
> Is this workable?  What do you think Tony?  What does the rest of the
> community think?  Would there need to be additional criteria defining how
> ARIN evaluates a organizations globally registered resource?

I think I am saying drop everything up to 'Otherwise'. Where the new
resource is being used is irrelevant. 

> 
> Like I said I'm just floating an idea, I'm not even sure I like it yet.
> 
> Let me know what you think.
> 
> --
> ===============================================
> David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
> Networking & Telecommunication Services
> Office of Information Technology
> University of Minnesota
> 2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
> Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
> ===============================================