<br><div class="gmail_quote"><div>OK I get it.</div><div>So to echo Bill Herrin's comments, what is the purpose of the "Until" portion of 2011-6? Whether it is part of this proposal or not, ('global policy which clearly defines a mechanism for the re-allocation') it will or it won't happen. What is the advantage to the community to push for global policy on re-allocation, if many of us (me included) would ideally prefer not to get into a return cycle?</div>
<div><br></div><div>Or how about.... "In the absence of " instead of "Until"</div><div><br></div><div>RD</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
> 4.1.9 Returned IPv4 Addresses<br>
><br>
> Until a global policy which clearly defines a mechanism for the<br>
> re-allocation of IPv4 addresses returned to the IANA is adopted by all<br>
> five regions and implemented at the IANA which clearly defines a<br>
> mechanism for the re-allocation of IPv4 addresses returned to the IANA;<br>
<br>
This fundamentally changes the character of the proposal. The point of<br>
the original proposal was to tell ARIN what to do with returned<br>
addresses -until further notice-, not to tell them what to do pending<br>
activity at IANA.<br>
<br>
We don't want addresses returned to IANA. Period. Unconditionally.<br>
Someday we'll change our minds, but not today. Please stop sneaking<br>
exceptions back in and pretending it's the same policy proposal.<br>
<br>
> all IPv4 addresses returned to, recovered, or revoked by ARIN will be<br>
> made available for allocation or assignment in the ARIN region as<br>
> quickly as practicable.<br>
<br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
William D. Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a>? <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <<a href="http://bill.herrin.us/" target="_blank">http://bill.herrin.us/</a>><br>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 2<br>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:10:21 -0400<br>
From: Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses - Last<br>
Call<br>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=<a href="mailto:2Bf9Wko9Fb-dSBGAqk0ktRqRdnw@mail.gmail.com">2Bf9Wko9Fb-dSBGAqk0ktRqRdnw@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:50 PM, William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:<br>
<br>
> On Mon, Apr 18, 2011 at 3:07 PM, ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> > Draft Policy ARIN-2011-6<br>
> > Returned IPv4 Addresses<br>
> ><br>
> > Policy statement:<br>
> ><br>
> > 4.1.9 Returned IPv4 Addresses<br>
> ><br>
> > Until a global policy which clearly defines a mechanism for the<br>
> > re-allocation of IPv4 addresses returned to the IANA is adopted by all<br>
> > five regions and implemented at the IANA which clearly defines a<br>
> > mechanism for the re-allocation of IPv4 addresses returned to the IANA;<br>
><br>
> This fundamentally changes the character of the proposal. The point of<br>
> the original proposal was to tell ARIN what to do with returned<br>
> addresses -until further notice-, not to tell them what to do pending<br>
> activity at IANA.<br>
><br>
<br>
That's why I explicitly called out the change.<br>
<br>
<br>
> We don't want addresses returned to IANA. Period. Unconditionally.<br>
> Someday we'll change our minds, but not today. Please stop sneaking<br>
> exceptions back in and pretending it's the same policy proposal.<br>
><br>
<br>
I don't see any attempt to sneak anything in here. The sentiment in San<br>
Juan was pretty clear that the community did not support the policy proposal<br>
as written. But rather than abandoning this proposal, or putting it back on<br>
the docket until the Philadelphia meeting, I (and others) felt it was<br>
important to advance the part of the proposal that did have consensus, due<br>
to the timeliness of the issue.<br>
<br>
It would also be entirely reasonable, IMO, to make another proposal to do<br>
something along the lines of this proposal's original intent, if you feel it<br>
would be likely to achieve consensus. I don't think such a proposal would<br>
be good for the global Internet community, but it's certainly a valid topic<br>
for continued discussion in light of the continued efforts to come to<br>
consensus with other regions on global policy for the distribution of IPv4<br>
addresses from IANA to the RIRs.<br>
<br>
-Scott<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110419/f0f0b18a/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110419/f0f0b18a/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 3<br>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:14:05 -0400<br>
From: Martin Hannigan <<a href="mailto:hannigan@gmail.com">hannigan@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Rudolph Daniel <<a href="mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com">rudi.daniel@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses - Last<br>
Call<br>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=<a href="mailto:tFQCD7UP5oOC_fTi%2BRf5sw1HeMw@mail.gmail.com">tFQCD7UP5oOC_fTi+Rf5sw1HeMw@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"<br>
<br>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 1:32 PM, Rudolph Daniel <<a href="mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com">rudi.daniel@gmail.com</a>>wrote:<br>
<br>
> I do not understand how 2011-6 contravenes ICP2.<br>
<br>
<br>
What don't you understand?<br>
<br>
<br>
> Earlier I noticed that there was a stated 1 month now replaced by "as soon<br>
> as practicable" ...the fact that no global policy currently exists, would it<br>
> not be better to go back to a stated time limit? If 1 month seems<br>
> unreasonable then why not (say) 3 months?<br>
<br>
<br>
I think that there's a better way to state it. "IPv4 addresses returned to<br>
ARIN will be immediately returned to the free pool for allocation or<br>
assignment while awaiting for the completion of any relative administrative<br>
procedure."<br>
<br>
The problem with leaving this open ended or with an assigned time is that if<br>
by some chance there is a global policy, the intent was to make sure that<br>
there was no confusion on the state of returned addresses. For example, if<br>
someone did by chance return a /8 and in 2.5 months a global policy after<br>
the return that policy was adopted, the status of the returned /8 would then<br>
be "open for interpretation". Stating a time frame in the manner that it has<br>
been stated degrades the predictability of the proposal.<br>
<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
-M<<br>
-------------- next part --------------<br>
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
URL: <<a href="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110419/7a602d7a/attachment-0001.html" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110419/7a602d7a/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 4<br>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:27:20 -0600<br>
From: Chris Grundemann <<a href="mailto:cgrundemann@gmail.com">cgrundemann@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Rudolph Daniel <<a href="mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com">rudi.daniel@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses - Last<br>
Call<br>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=P_M50TdD2Q=<a href="mailto:jnc9bQ97KWzhrXhg@mail.gmail.com">jnc9bQ97KWzhrXhg@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
<br>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:32, Rudolph Daniel <<a href="mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com">rudi.daniel@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> I do not understand how 2011-6 contravenes ICP2.<br>
<br>
I also do not see that connection.<br>
<br>
> Earlier I noticed that there was a stated 1 month now replaced by "as soon as practicable" ...the fact that no global policy currently exists, would it not be better to go back to a stated time limit? If 1 month seems unreasonable then why not (say) 3 months?<br>
<br>
During previous discussions surrounding this proposal, we seemed to<br>
gain consensus that different address blocks are in different<br>
circumstances and may require longer or shorter hold-down periods to<br>
be useful. We also discussed the fact that as there is less and less<br>
IPv4 address space available, it may become prudent to shorten the<br>
hold-downs to get space out to those who have immediate need,<br>
irregardless of any "dirtiness" of the block. The last thing discussed<br>
was the varying workload of staff and their ability to meet an<br>
arbitrary time limit. Overall it appears that the best way to deal<br>
with this varied and changing environment it to provide guidance to<br>
ARIN staff (as soon as practicable) and let them determine the exact<br>
hold-down period necessary. If you feel that this is not the best<br>
course of action - we (the AC and particularly the shepherds of this<br>
proposal) would love to get that feedback!<br>
<br>
HTH,<br>
~Chris<br>
<br>
<br>
> RD<br>
><br>
> --<br>
><br>
> Rudi Daniel<br>
> danielcharles consulting<br>
> 1-784 498 8277<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
@ChrisGrundemann<br>
<a href="http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com" target="_blank">weblog.chrisgrundemann.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.burningwiththebush.com" target="_blank">www.burningwiththebush.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.theIPv6experts.net" target="_blank">www.theIPv6experts.net</a><br>
<a href="http://www.coisoc.org" target="_blank">www.coisoc.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 5<br>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 14:39:06 -0400<br>
From: Martin Hannigan <<a href="mailto:hannigan@gmail.com">hannigan@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: Chris Grundemann <<a href="mailto:cgrundemann@gmail.com">cgrundemann@gmail.com</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>, Rudolph Daniel <<a href="mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com">rudi.daniel@gmail.com</a>><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses - Last<br>
Call<br>
Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:BANLkTimPTsiJkgEEKV_DjaczWL7upr_sNw@mail.gmail.com">BANLkTimPTsiJkgEEKV_DjaczWL7upr_sNw@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
<br>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 2:27 PM, Chris Grundemann <<a href="mailto:cgrundemann@gmail.com">cgrundemann@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:32, Rudolph Daniel <<a href="mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com">rudi.daniel@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
<br>
><br>
> During previous discussions surrounding this proposal, we seemed to<br>
> gain consensus that different address blocks are in different<br>
> circumstances and may require longer or shorter hold-down periods to<br>
> be useful. We also discussed the fact that as there is less and less<br>
> IPv4 address space available, it may become prudent to shorten the<br>
> hold-downs to get space out to those who have immediate need,<br>
> irregardless of any "dirtiness" of the block. The last thing discussed<br>
> was the varying workload of staff and their ability to meet an<br>
> arbitrary time limit. Overall it appears that the best way to deal<br>
> with this varied and changing environment it to provide guidance to<br>
> ARIN staff (as soon as practicable) and let them determine the exact<br>
> hold-down period necessary. If you feel that this is not the best<br>
> course of action - we (the AC and particularly the shepherds of this<br>
> proposal) would love to get that feedback!<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
Which would make setting hold periods a negative. The intent was to<br>
insure that the addresses are returned to the free pool immediately<br>
and then the administrative requirements can be dealt with. It's a<br>
subtle yet important distinction which makes the policy predictable<br>
vs. open to interpretation.<br>
<br>
Best,<br>
<br>
-M<<br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
Message: 6<br>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2011 12:57:03 -0600<br>
From: Chris Grundemann <<a href="mailto:cgrundemann@gmail.com">cgrundemann@gmail.com</a>><br>
To: William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>><br>
Cc: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses - Last<br>
Call<br>
Message-ID: <BANLkTi=<a href="mailto:bPZcdLM9k2CoqKwCPiMZeWax41w@mail.gmail.com">bPZcdLM9k2CoqKwCPiMZeWax41w@mail.gmail.com</a>><br>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1<br>
<br>
On Tue, Apr 19, 2011 at 11:50, William Herrin <<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> This fundamentally changes the character of the proposal. The point of<br>
> the original proposal was to tell ARIN what to do with returned<br>
> addresses -until further notice-, not to tell them what to do pending<br>
> activity at IANA.<br>
><br>
> We don't want addresses returned to IANA. Period. Unconditionally.<br>
> Someday we'll change our minds, but not today. Please stop sneaking<br>
> exceptions back in and pretending it's the same policy proposal.<br>
<br>
I understand that you do not want addresses returned to IANA. Period.<br>
But the majority of the community appears to disagree with you. The<br>
community does seem to agree, however, that IPv4 addresses should not<br>
be stranded at the IANA.<br>
<br>
WRT the current changes, I would like to point out that the original<br>
rationale for this proposal (ARIN-prop-131) mentioned global policy<br>
directly:<br>
<br>
Adopting this proposal will result in the clarification of the status<br>
of returned legacy addresses. There either is a global policy, a globally<br>
coordinated policy, or there isn't. If there isn't, the addresses will<br>
not sit idle if there is need.<br>
The ARIN AC should review and determine what action if any should be<br>
taken at their next available opportunity, or sooner if they deem warranted.<br>
[<a href="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-January/019533.html" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-January/019533.html</a>]<br>
<br>
And that the current, revised, rationale still makes a point to<br>
discuss creating clarity:<br>
<br>
Adopting this proposal will result in the clarification of the status<br>
of returned legacy addresses. IPv4 address resources should not sit<br>
idle due to lack of policy clarity.<br>
[<a href="https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_6.html" target="_blank">https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_6.html</a>]<br>
<br>
I believe that is exactly what the new text does; it creates clarity<br>
regarding the return of addresses to ARIN and to the IANA, inline with<br>
the general sentiment of the community ("don't strand space").<br>
<br>
As one of the shepherds for ARIN-2011-6, I have tried to facilitate<br>
this proposal meeting the general communities desires, and also what I<br>
believe is the best stewardship of IPv4 number resources, based on the<br>
original proposals intent. I am aware that this does not match the<br>
exact desires of everyone, including you, and I want you to know that<br>
I (and I believe the rest of the AC) has taken this into consideration<br>
while discussing this (and all other) policy proposals.<br>
<br>
With that in mind, I would like to encourage others that share Bill's<br>
view to speak up now, while this proposal is in last call, so that we<br>
may better understand your perspective. Of course, if you agree with<br>
the current text, or disagree with it for other reasons, we would love<br>
to hear that as well!<br>
<br>
Cheers,<br>
~Chris<br>
<br>
><br>
> Regards,<br>
> Bill Herrin<br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> --<br>
> William D. Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a>? <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <<a href="http://bill.herrin.us/" target="_blank">http://bill.herrin.us/</a>><br>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> PPML<br>
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
> Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
@ChrisGrundemann<br>
<a href="http://weblog.chrisgrundemann.com" target="_blank">weblog.chrisgrundemann.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.burningwiththebush.com" target="_blank">www.burningwiththebush.com</a><br>
<a href="http://www.theIPv6experts.net" target="_blank">www.theIPv6experts.net</a><br>
<a href="http://www.coisoc.org" target="_blank">www.coisoc.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
------------------------------<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
ARIN-PPML mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
<br>
End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 70, Issue 80<br>
*****************************************<br>
</blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><img src="http://api.ning.com/files/60Dc*7fMSnOD5inYWvnElhieb2y*e2O798iHVa48vgYOJUmz33g1MSmWAGQs0M2C7g4LXqAu0KvJ0c99k3kSouZfig33AnNo/emaillogo.jpg" height="61" width="58"><br>
<div>Rudi Daniel<div><i><a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774" target="_blank">danielcharles consulting</a><br></i><b><span style="font-size:large"><font color="#006600"><a href="http://www.facebook.com/pages/Kingstown-Saint-Vincent-and-the-Grenadines/DanielCharles/153611257984774" target="_blank">1-784 498 8277</a></font></span></b></div>
<div><font color="#006600"><span style="font-size:large"><b><br></b></span></font><div><span style="font-size:large"><br></span></div></div></div><br>