[arin-ppml] Registry functioning (was: Re: ARIN-PPML 2015-2)

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Wed Jun 3 17:47:03 EDT 2015


On Jun 3, 2015, at 4:48 PM, David Conrad <drc at virtualized.org> wrote:
> 
> John,
> 
>>   You obviously feel very strongly about this topic,
> 
> What gave it away? :)
> 
>>   If I understand your view on the matter, you are concerned that current ARIN
>>   registry policy as developed by this community results in “registry inaccuracy”
> 
> Not that it does result in inaccuracy, but rather that it can result in inaccuracy.  In as much as policy forces a degradation of accuracy of the registry relative to the reality of the use of ARIN resources on the network, I believe the policy to be fundamentally flawed and inappropriate. However, this may be more of an implementation failure than a failure of policy -- it should be possible to implement a policy without degrading the registry database (unless the policy demands that degradation, of course).

Acknowledged.

> 
>>   I don’t think that you are advocating for ARIN not to follow the community-
>>   developed policy (although you were not quite clear when directly asked that)
> 
> If the community defines a policy that violates the trust the community has placed in ARIN, then I definitely am advocating that ARIN not follow that policy (community defined or not). For example, if the community defines a policy that requires ARIN to (say) "confiscate" IPv4 addresses from AfriNIC, then yes, I would advocate ARIN not follow the community-developed policy. Would you, as ARIN's CEO, say that policy must be followed?

In our particular policy development process, there is a specific check where the Board
confirms that the policy advances ARIN's mission, does not create unreasonable fiduciary
or liability risk, is be consistent with ARIN's Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and all
applicable laws and regulations.     Ergo, I would hope that a policy that violates the
ARIN’s mission (including the trust of the community) would not be ratified - this would
have the convenient effect of having an elected body make that ultimate determination
rather than myself as CEO.

Once ratified by the Board, I do believe that the community expects the ARIN staff to
faithfully follow the policy as written.

>>   1) Are you simply strongly advocating that community on this mailing list should
>>       change the registry policy such that there is no needs-basis for transfers?
>> 
>>   2) Alternatively, do you believe that the community should not have been allowed
>>       to establish any policy for transfers, as registry policy has historically been with
>>       respect to the allocation/assignment role of the registry, and the ongoing role of
>>       registry administration and maintenance should not have any applicable policy?
>> 
>>    If the latter (#2), would that belief mean that there should also be no policy setting
>>    a minimum block size for transfers or required contact information, etc?    There is
>>    some manner in which you feel that ARIN has cast aside proper registry functioning,
>>    and I am trying understand if it is consternation with the ARIN community over their
>>    policy choices or a structural belief regarding the application of registry policy.
> 
> As I stated previously, my argument is not with the policy related to needs based transfers per se, rather it is with how that policy impacts the registration database. If ARIN wishes to disallow non-needs based transfers, I have no issue -- it is a community decision with plusses and minuses.

Thanks for the clarity in your response… very helpful.   It appears that we have
a common belief that the community has the ability to set policy for the registry,
including with respect to transfers.

> However, as you may have noted, I strongly believe that _if those transfers still occur despite ARIN policy, the registry must still accurately reflect that transfer_.

Okay, I think I see the area of disconnect, and it is with respect to the above point.

Is it correct to say that you simply feel registry should always be updated if address
holder wishes (and even if they disregard policy, fail to enter an agreement pay the
transfer fee, etc?)

Or are you saying that we should deny such transfers, but if somehow effectively
‘possession’ of the address block moves to another party despite lack of transfer,
that the registry has to eventually reflect reality?

(just trying to understand your nuance regarding issue being with the impact to the
database, not the policy itself per se)

Thanks!
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN





-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 842 bytes
Desc: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150603/50b2984f/attachment-0001.sig>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list