[arin-ppml] [Revised] DRAFT POLICY ARIN-2014-9: RESOLVE CONFLICT BETWEEN RSA AND 8.2 UTILIZATION REQUIREMENTS

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 26, 2014, at 11:52 , Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> wrote:

> On 6/2/2014 10:34 AM, Heather Schiller wrote:
>> At the PPM in April, there was support for leaving this paragraph in
>> the NRPM, but removing the words 'aggregate' and 'return', resulting
>> in the text below.   The AC encourages feedback on this proposed change.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> --Heather
>> 
>> 
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9
>> Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements
>> 
>> Remove the words "aggregate" and "reclaim" from 8.2, so it reads:
>> 
>> "In the event that number resources of the combined organizations are
>> no longer justified under ARIN policy at the time ARIN becomes aware
>> of the transaction, through a transfer request or otherwise, ARIN will
>> work with the resource holder(s) to return or transfer resources as
>> needed to restore compliance via the processes outlined in current
>> ARIN policy."
>> 
> 
> This new text removes the threat of reclamation from the policy manual
> as the current RSA (section 6) prohibits ARIN from reclaiming addresses
> for lack of use, but this rewrite does not make it clear that an
> organization can retain their addresses for future use.  This change
> makes it clear that resources or parts of resources will not become
> orphaned blocks due to a merger or acquisition.  I believe this change
> would promote registry accuracy as it should allow organizations to
> update all their records to show the new holder and user of the
> resources regardless of utilization. 
> 
> May I suggest the following rewrite to clarify that an organization can
> retain their addresses through a transfer.
> 
> ...ARIN will notify the resource holder(s) that they may return or
> transfer resources as needed to restore compliance via the processes
> outlined in current ARIN policy or retain their resources for future use
> or later transfer/return.

I would not support this change. It is not the intent of the policy to facilitate
hoarding addresses for future use which is what this would enable.

While ARIN is prohibited by (errors in) the RSA from reclaiming resources
under this circumstance, I believe it is still appropriate for policy to require
holders to take action to restore their networks to compliance with the intent
of policy.

Owen