[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:

> Jason, further comments inline.
> 
> On 5/30/2013 10:18 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:
>> Andrew,
>> 
>> (Putting aside the RFC-2050 3.1 - does this create a new ability to revoke legacy IPs for the other thread)
>> 
>> Your comments boil down to:
>> 
>> 1. it comes down to "modernizing" the 2050 text/principles
>> 2. keeping principles in the principles section and not putting specific policy in the principles section.
>> 
>> In general I agree with both.
>> 
>> I tried to start with 2050 text/principles, and only attempted to go beyond that text where it helped,
>> e.g. such as substituting "efficient use" for conservation (nobody uses conservation) but still paying 
>> homage to the conservation section that this principle stems from.
>> 
>> It is possible that some of the language from 2050 is to detailed or "policy specific" and should be 
>> stripped away and moved into other more relevant sections of the NRPM.  This may be a bit tricky to 
>> do in separate proposals as you want both things to happen.  
>> 
>> I propose we ether initially adopt, then decide if certain details should be moved elsewhere, or 
>> figure out which specific details should be moved where,and include them in this proposal (or both).
>> 
>> But just because there already is a detailed section on say transfers, doesn't mean it shouldn't also 
>> be included in the principles section that
>> 
>> "The transfer of Internet number resources from one party to another must be approved by the regional 
>>   registries. The party trying to obtain the resources must meet the same criteria as if they were 
>>   requesting resources directly from the IR."
> 
> I think having a transfers section in the principles, document is appropriate, I would point out that today the transfer policies are different from the direct RIR policies, e.g. 24months vs. 3 months.  So today we don't follow the above principle.
> 
> I'd propose the following updated text:
> 
> The transfer of Internet number resources from one organization to another must be approved by a RIR.  Transfer policies are created by Internet stakeholders through the community driven policy development process.
>  

IMHO, this is unnecessary doublespeak.

Having a community policy document that is the result of a community development process state that the other parts of the same document are developed through that same document seems redundant to me. The ARIN bylaws and articles of incorporation cover the existence of the PDP rather well. The PDP itself is also well documented elsewhere. I don't believe we need to summarize it again in the NRPM specifically with respect to transfers.

I don't see any need to call transfers out specifically in the principles separate from other policies.

>> 
>> One could image that the ARIN community decides that there should be no transfers, and all 
>> redistribution of addresses should be through return to IANA and split equally among the RIRs.
>> In this case the ARIN community could abolish the text on transfers.  Would we then loose the
>> principle that if a transfer was to happen (say a new transfer policy in the future) it should be
>> governed by the same principles of getting address space directly from the RIRs?   
>> 

I don't see that as likely. However, if it were to occur, it would be just as likely to strike the above proposed language from the principles text at the same time. Requiring another section to be modified when changing policies just for the sake of having another section to modify doesn't make sense to me.

> 
> While using "sustainability" instead of "conservation" would be a textual change, it might be a positive change.  To me what the RIRs do with number resources today are more closely aligned with the definition of sustainability vs conservation.  
> 
> Sustainability to me means managing a resource for all stakeholders.  Conservation sometimes means preserving the status quo or excluding certain uses to protect the resource.
> 

+1

> The word "conservation" appears 3 times in the current posted draft.  Just substituting the word "sustainability" seems to make sense to me.  This might however be too much a of a jump for others.
> 
>> 
>> 4. documentation to promote increased utilization
>> 
>> So I think there are a number of reasons accurate documentation is important, 
>> and I think one of them is so that the RIR can measure utilization and judge 
>> current usage prior to deciding to give additional space.  This process causes
>> more efficient utilization over all.
>> 
>> I think this aspect is important, and should be included.  It is possible the some 
>> word smithing may be in order.  
>> 
>> "Resource holders will be required to provide an accounting of resources currently held  
>> in order to provide the necessary transparency and accountability.  This information provides
>> IRs the ability to measure efficient utilization of current space prior to allocating or assigning
>> additional space."
> 
> I the above proposed text is pretty good.  
> 

I don't like the title of point 4. I do like the text. I would propose:

4. Documentation of Use of Number Resources

>> 
>> 5. transfers
>> 
>> I agree, the details of transfer policy should be in the "main" portion of the NRPM, and already is, 
>> and that is where the details of transfers should be documented.
>> 
>> But I also think RFC-2050 gives us some high level guiding principles wrt transfers:
>> A. RIRs must approve
>> B. must be consistent with the criteria as if they were requesting an IP address directly
>> 

Both of those are already enshrined in the existing transfer policy. I don't see any benefit to moving it elsewhere.

>> I think these principles should be included.
>> 
>> I am not opposed to the text "RIRs shall determine IP number resources transfer policies through 
>> their community driven policy development process."  In fact all policies (except emergency ones) 
>> are determined by the community through the PDP...but I'm not sure that changes anything.
> 
> See above proposed text and comments.
> 

Actually, all policies, including emergency ones are ultimately determined by the community through the PDP. The difference is that in the case of an emergency policy, it is implemented first and PDP'd later.

>> 6. audit
>> 
>> I think some guiding principle text is important here.   This text was lifter from RFC-2050.  
>> Again, not intending to create new capabilities here, but think this principle (in some form is important)
>> 
>> 
>> If the community thinks it is superseded by text in the NRPM and RSA, I am happy to use that text as 
>> a basis for pulling out some high-level principles.
>> 
>> Is there RSA or NRPM text that is high level enough to use here?  How would you propose to create
>> high level principles from the RSA and NRPM text?
>> 

I believe audit is adequately covered in NRPM 12. If you believe otherwise, please state what you specifically think is deficient.

Owen


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130602/4543d2ed/attachment.htm>