[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-174 Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry

[John Curran]

On Jun 20, 2012, at 3:26 PM, Milton L Mueller wrote:

>> Milton - If we're going to keep the discussion on what makes for good
>> policy in the various proposals, it would be helpful if you would also
>> refrain from "verbal assertion of authority over an issue that is
>> legally and politically contested."  i.e. In this particular case, it is
>> clear that ARIN _can_ require any party to conform to community policy
>> before changing the number resource registration in the registry.  How
>> that conflates with your statement above is still contested, so it would
>> be best to instead argue for the inclusion or omission of need-basis for
>> transfers based on its own policy merits or concerns (if we are indeed
>> to follow your advice.)
>> 
> 
> I guess you didn't read the rest of my message:

I did indeed; my comment stands.  

> Moreover, I fail to see what ARIN really loses by simply allowing those legacy holders to do what they want and updating its records regardless.  

To waive the existing policies for requests from legacy holders is
possible, but presumes that the goals of such policies are not 
worth continuing.  For example, if a /16 address holder shows up
and wishes to transfer their number resources into 16385 blocks
of /30 each (i.e. without regard to the minimum sizes in present 
policy), there may be implications.  If this is truly acceptable
to the community, then there's likely other legacy and non-legacy
who would like to operate without the minimum block constraints.

Shouldn't the merits of such a situation should be discussed with
due consideration of "what makes good policy" and not specifically 
who is making the request?

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN