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

[Jason Schiller]

John,

Reading your respons brings to mind a general question.

You said "the most likely change that would be anticipated
by insertation of that into ARIN policy would be ..."

In this and other cases the "that" is RFC-2050 text.

Shouldn't the text of RFC-2050 already impact ARIN policy?

(Assuming no translational issues, out of context, etc)
why would the impact differ when the text is in RFC-2050,
or in the NRPM?

(I'm not debating there is value in community being more clear
in outlining its expectations and impact on operations. I think
that point is true if this text is added to the NRPM and while this
text remains in RFC-2050.

We certainly can improve on the 2050 text, but I was trying to avoid
any updates that may be controversial, and was more interesting in
preserving the principles in 2050 in the first go around. )

__Jason

On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 6:07 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:

> On May 30, 2013, at 5:22 PM, Gary Buhrmaster <gary.buhrmaster at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 8:37 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> > .....
> >> Were ARIN ever to attempt meaningful alteration of my legacy address
> >> registration without my consent it would find itself responding in
> >> court, regardless of any alleged basis in policy for that action. I
> >> doubt I'd be the only one to see you there.
> >
> > I am sure that any policy change that resulted in "meaningful"
> > alteration of legacy registration would be the equivalent of the
> > nuclear option, and the fallout would be highly toxic to
> > someone (and likely everyone).
>
> Gary -
>
>   I imagine that very much depends on what one considers "meaningful";
>   for example, the community decided that having an abuse contact on
>   each resource record was appropriate, and all resources in the registry
>   were updated accordingly.  I do not know what future generations of
>   Internet operators will require of the Internet numbers registry,
>   but it certainly could involve more "meaningful" changes if that
>   is what is adopted.
>
>   On the particular language which raised this issue ("IP addresses are
>   valid as long as the criteria continues to be met"), the most likely
>   change that would be anticipated by insertation of that into ARIN
>   policy would be potential "lack of validity", and it is probably fairly
>   important for the community to fully outline its expectations there,
>   as could easily be a significant change compared to present operations
>   and may be preempted by ARIN's RSA/LRSA terms and conditions if it
>   involves ARIN taking action due to lack of utilization of number
>   resources.
>
> FYI,
> /John
>
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> ARIN
>
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>



-- 
_______________________________________________________
Jason Schiller|NetOps|jschiller at google.com|571-266-0006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130531/053df8aa/attachment.htm>