[arin-ppml] Change of Use and ARIN (was: Re: AFRINIC And The Stability Of The Internet Number Registry System)

Fernando Frediani fhfrediani at gmail.com
Sat Sep 4 17:48:32 EDT 2021

Being part of Policy Development Processes I see people sometimes 
unwilling to have certain rules and restrictions that are correct and 
fair with the justification that "people will break it" or they will do 
under the table, so then it seems there is a suggestion of "let's have 
next to no rules" which is in my view out of mind.

I have always repeated to these people that there are mechanisms to 
enforce it in a way of another, with more or less efficiency but at the 
end people have to learn to respect rules, contracts they sign and if 
they don't then have the sanction upon them, merciless !
I understand the need to evaluate well each rule and try to have a good 
balance between the feasibility and difficulty to enforce, the legal 
risk to the RIR, but at the end if something is necessary then that has 
a propose to exist in the interest of most.
I also agree with John in the sense that the language used have to be 
less subjective possible in order to avoid the stress out of it compared 
to the benefits it can bring.

What we cannot avoid is to have a new and necessary rule with the fear 
that it may not be followed.


On 04/09/2021 17:32, John Curran wrote:
> On 4 Sep 2021, at 3:13 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> ...
>> One critically important part of setting a regulation is
>> enforceability. If it's impractical to enforce a rule you're better
>> off not having it. Instead, rework the rule to the closest thing you
>> can enforce without creating an arbitrary and unfair rule. And if
>> there isn't a sensible rule to be written, then don't.
>> A prohibition on leasing addresses is not enforceable. The LIR can
>> simply provide a low-data rate transit service along with the
>> addresses, fully understanding that it won't be used because the
>> customer has acquired other transit. The expense to the LIR is as
>> close to zero as makes no difference.
>> Try to restrict that to "primary" network service and you end up with
>> a nasty mess where ordinary users aren't free to use second and third
>> ISPs for fear of fouling the address contract. It just doesn't work
>> out.
>> Yes, this means that when you write the rule you have to think like
>> the people who intend to break it and figure out how they're going to
>> get around it.
> So I personally believe that ARIN performs its mission much better with clear & objective policy, and to that extent I strongly agree with your suggestion that the community “should think like the people who intend to break it “ and carefully consider the clarity and implementability of proposed policy language.
> However, I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that ARIN does not actually operate as an automaton, but rather already has policy language that requires that we exercise substantial judgement in administration of number resources.  Some example of policy language exemplifying the need for staff judgement includes NRPM 3.6.4, NRPM 4.10, NRPM 6.3.8, NRPM 12, etc.   Hence why “requiring subjective evaluation” does not equate to “arbitrary” or “unfair”; it simply takes more effort to perform.
> As such, your statement "A prohibition on leasing addresses is not enforceable.” looks to be far more definitive than might be the case.  For example, it would be fairly straightforward to prohibit planned “leasing” of address space as justification for a larger IPv4 waiting list request, or for any allocation from the dedicated blocks for IPv6 or critical infrastructure, etc.  ARIN is quite capable of reviewing and evaluating bona fide connectivity provision if indeed the community were to adopt policy requiring such.  More importantly, however, is the need for the community to carefully consider the downside of adding more policy language that requires subjective evaluation compared to any potential benefit that might result.
> FYI,
> /John
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list