[arin-ppml] Against 2013-4

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Mon Jun 3 16:38:13 EDT 2013

On Jun 3, 2013, at 1:58 PM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>> wrote:

The point of this policy is to preserve our principles of stewardship. Up until now,
the source of these principles has been RFC 2050.  Many things reference it
and it's principles when considering stewardship.

If RFC 205bis passes, all of the stewardship language will be deprecated.

This policy attempts to take those principles and place them in the NRPM.

Jason -

    RFC 2050 contained both "goals" (Conservation,  Routability, Registration)
    and "allocation guidelines"...   You have taken components of both "goals"
    and "allocation guidelines" and put them together into a set of RIR principles.

    Given that we know that much of the "allocation guidelines" section has
    been overtaken by community-based policy in each of the regions, it is a
    valid question as to whether any language from the "allocation guidelines"
    section should now suddenly be brought forward 15 years and made into
    current policy in the region as "RIR Principles".

My attempt was not to be backwards looking, nor to revert current policy to
what it was in 1996.  In theory these principles have and continue to guide
our policy making, and are still true, so we can simply copy them over.

    Note that RFC2050bis still contains Goals for the Internet Number Registry
    System  <http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt>, and these
    include Allocation Pool Management, Hierarchical Allocation, and Registration
    Accuracy, so it is not necessary to have a draft policy if the RIR Principles
    that you are are covered by these goals.

I made a conscious effort minimize modernizing the policy and believe I
did so only where the language we use has clarified the principle and is
consistent with current ARIN policy and operations.

The thought here was to not change the status quo, and simply document
what is the already agreed upon basis of the current state of things.

The problem is that in some cases policy and practice has evolved
beyond the current RFC 2050 language, and based on some
interpretations conflicts with these principles.

   I believe any conflicts are the result of incorporating "allocation policy"
   from 15 years ago into your RIR principles, and that debate on what
   additional principles (if any) are needed for the ARIN registry is indeed
   a reasonable discussion for this mailing list independent of language
   in the draft policy.

Should ARIN policy and operations be changed to match the principle?
(Did we make a wrong term and abandon a principle we should not have?)

Should the principle be modified to make holes for the ARIN practice?
(The principle is true, but it doesn't apply here due to this history)

Should the principle be documented as is, but ARIN to continue its practice
unchanged? (this is what we have now with the current state of RFC 2050)

   I am unaware of any conflict between the three goals in RFC 2050
   (Conservation,  Routability, Registration) and ARIN's existing policies
   and practices.  I am also unaware of any conflict in the proposed
   RFC2050bis Goals and ARIN's existing policies and practices.

These questions can only be answered once the staff assessment is complete,
and we understand to what extent this draft policy could influence current
ARIN policy and operations.

   We will perform a staff assessment to determine what conflicts with existing
   practices would be created by adoption of the draft policy.  It is likely that
   any such conflicts are result of language from the "allocation guidelines"
   portion of the RFC2050 which is being refreshed as "RIR Principles" via
   the draft policy.


John Curran
President and CEO

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130603/323b3a51/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list