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

[John Curran]

On May 31, 2013, at 1:47 AM, Jason Schiller <jschiller at google.com<mailto:jschiller at google.com>>
 wrote:

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?

At the time of publication more than 15 years ago, RFC 2050 was a baseline
of operational guidelines for all of the regional registries, with each RIR free
to establish any additional guidelines as appropriate.   Since that time, both
individual RIRs have evolved, as well as the entire structure of the Internet
Number Registry System.  This is one of the key reasons why it was felt
that RFC2050 was long overdue to be refreshed, as many material issues
have changed since that time (e.g. Jon Postel no longer available as IANA,
formation of ICANN, introduction of additional RIRs, IPv6, etc.)  RFC 2050
was operational guidelines from a single point in time, with it made clear
that the policies followed by an RIR could be supplemented with additional
policy and/or these global operational guidelines themselves could be
amended by the IANA to reflect changing requirements.

The reality is that the entire system has so extensively changed that each
RIR has its own adopted policy, has contractual relations with its members,
and we have a formal process with ICANN for adoption of global policy.  There
is quite a bit in RFC 2050 operational guidelines which has been preempted
by these events, and hence the reason why the RFC2050bis effort has
focused on primarily describing the Internet Number Registry System, and
calling out those technical considerations from RFC 2050 which are inherent
to use of the the Internet Protocol and should be considered in establishing
registry policy.

I would say that the underlying concepts in RFC 2050 should indeed be
considered when setting ARIN registry policy, but how exactly that is done,
and how much weight is given to individual principles is very much up to this
community.

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

See above.  ARIN must follow NRPM in operation of the registry, whereas
RFC 2050 is a 15 year-old base set of operational guidelines and technical
principles for consideration in establishing registry policy for this region.

(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.

As there is language in RFC 2050 which is clearly obsoleted by events,
it is necessary for the community to discuss and determine what aspects
should be considered current and incorporated into ARIN registry policy.

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. )

A very admirable goal, but you are conflicted between the implied goals
of "avoiding updates" versus "producing something which is both current
and accurate."  I'm not sure that the latter is achievable without quite a
bit of debate on what should be adopted.

Best wishes on your effort!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20130531/99eb372c/attachment.htm>