[arin-ppml] re-org question

[John Curran]

On 18 Nov 2016, at 12:05 PM, David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
> 
> While I may not be happy with the way this particular "community expectation" is instantiated in policy, I feel the policy in question is too onerous.  That said, I think it is extremely important for "community expectations" to be communicated through policy.  

Bill 

David is quite correct - community expectations are just that; the fact that ARIN does 
not have an enforcement role does not mean that these expectations are invalid. 

> Further, I would suggest that an attitude that non-binding "community expectations" can be safely ignored is dangerous, because it only invites the community to create policies that are binding and likely to be inflexible and even more onerous.  If fact I feel the reason we have the policy in question is because too many people are ignoring "community expectations" to begin with. 
> 
> Voluntary compliance with "community expectations" is a much preferred model for most policy in my opinion and is key to the industry self-regulatory model. 

For example, NRPM 4.2.3.7. (Reassignment Information) sets expectations with 
regard to customer reassignments.  Historically, the enforcement of this requirement 
has been via indirect enforcement – specifically, when an organization requested their
next IP address block, ARIN performed detailed reviews of their previous assignment 
information.  This level of review is less likely with transfers, given the more generous
criteria that applies.  

To my knowledge, we have no reclaimed address blocks due to lack of reassignment
information, but the community expectation remains that such information will put in 
the Whois per NRPM 4.2.3.7.   If the community feels that no reassignment info is 
necessary, then this section could be removed; but currently, its presence provides
important guidance despite no direct enforcement by ARIN.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN