[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2021-4: Clarifications to Sections 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5.6

[Owen DeLong]

> 
>  
> Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2021-4: Clarifications to Sections 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5.6
>  
> AC Assessment of Conformance with the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy: 
>  
> This Draft Policy is fair, impartial, and technically sound. The intent of this policy is to clarify the language in sections 6.5.2.1, 8.3, and 8.4 with respect to ASN-only transactions and the term “number resources”. It also clarifies that Section 8.5.6 refers specifically to IPv4.
>  
> Problem Statement: 
>  
> The current language in Sections 6.5.2.1, 8.3 and 8.4 is not clear regarding ASN-only transactions as well as the term “number resources”. The current language in Section 8.5.6 is not clear with regard to additional IPv4 space.
>  
> Policy statement: 
>  
> In section 6.5.2.1 g., Replace
>  
> ”Partial returns of any IPv6 allocation that results in less than a /36 of holding are not permitted regardless of the ISP’s current or former IPv4 number resource holdings.”

>  
> with
>  
> ”Partial returns of any IPv6 allocation that results in less than a /36 of holding are not permitted regardless of the ISP’s current or former IPv4 address holdings.”

Why is there any relationship here between IPv6 allocation and IPv4 holdings? Recommend striking everything after the word permitted as it serves no purpose other than to create confusion.

I realize that this is language brought over from the original, but since we are attempting to improve the language, why not go all the way?


> Replace
>  
> “The source entity must be the current rights holder of the IPv4 addresses or ASNs recognized by the RIR responsible for the resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.”
>  
> with
>  
> “The source entity must be the current rights holder of the IPv4 addresses or ASN recognized by the RIR responsible for the resources, and not be involved in any dispute as to the status of those resources.”

I don’t see any difference in this change other than the font size.

Further, since we seem determined to avoid use of the term resources, perhaps the intended change was to replace “…status of those resources” with “…status of those IPv4 addresses and/or ASN(s).”

If we’re going for true clarity, we should also probably replace “…IPv4 addresses or ASN” with “…IPv4 addresses and/or ASN(s)”, since a transfer may include some quantity of IPv4 addresses, one or more ASNs, or both.
 
> In Section 8.5.6:
>  
> Replace
>  
> “Organizations with direct assignments or allocations from ARIN must have efficiently utilized at least 50% of their cumulative IPv4 address blocks in order to receive additional IPv4 addresses. This includes all space reassigned to their customers.”
>  
> with
>  
> “Organizations with direct assignments or allocations from ARIN must have efficiently utilized at least 50% of their cumulative IPv4 address blocks in order to receive additional IPv4 space. This includes all IPv4 space reassigned to their customers.” 

I see absolutely zero benefit when we’ve gone to lengths to use “IPv4 Addresses” virtually every where else to convert from that to “space” here. Suggest instead, replacing the second occurrence of “space” with “addresses”.

Owen

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20220302/bc4e9b4d/attachment.htm>