<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">
<div>
<div>On May 31, 2013, at 10:21 AM, Jason Schiller <<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="">To that end, would it be unreasonable to ask for something different in the staff assessment?</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">Certainly a standard staff assessment should be done, but could staff also publish </div>
<div style="">a separate assessment, of each of the snippets of the draft policy that would</div>
<div style="">impact ARIN operations, how it would impact ARIN operations, and if there are other</div>
<div style="">events (text) that have superseded this text.</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">The community will then have:</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">1. the original principle</div>
<div style="">2. the history about the departure<br>
3. the now current policy</div>
<div style="">4. how that might be changed if we reassert the principle in RFC 2050</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">The community can the first decide if the current policy / ARIN practice should remain</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">Assuming it should remain, the community should judge if this is:</div>
<div style="">A: Consistant with the original principle - should have no ARIN policy impact </div>
<div style="">B: The original principle is still true, but need to be modified to support current policy</div>
<div style="">C: Inconsistent with the original principle, but the original principle still holds true,<br>
</div>
<div style="">
<div> current NRPM text should change, but resulting ARIN policy should be the same</div>
<div>
<div>D: Inconsistent with the original principle, but the original principle still holds true,</div>
<div> current ARIN policy should change</div>
<div>
<div>E: Inconsistent with the original principle, but the original principle still holds true,</div>
<div> current ARIN policy is an artifact of other events but should not change</div>
<div style="">F: Inconsistent with the original principle, and the community has concluded that it </div>
<div style=""> should depart from this original principle, as it is no longer valid.</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">For example wrt the text: </div>
<div style="">"<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">IP addresses are </span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">valid as long as the criteria continues to be met"</span></div>
<div style="">the community may decide that: </div>
<div style="">- Yes this is a general principle that is still true</div>
<div style="">- No we don't think it should mean ARIN should start reclaiming legacy space</div>
<div style=""> that is under 80% utilized.</div>
<div style="">- No we don't think this should challenge the current RSA</div>
<div style="">- Yes we need some clarifying text asserting this</div>
<div style="">Conclusion ARIN AC (working with the community should work on text asserting this)</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">For example wrt 0.1.1 text:</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">"<span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Assignment of Internet number resources is based on documented operational need. </span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Utilization rate of address space will be a key factor in number resource assignment. </span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">T</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">o this end, registrants should have documented justified need available for each assignment. </span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">Organizations will be assigned resources based on immediate utilization plus expected utilization."</span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div style="">The community might decide that:</div>
<div style="">- Yes this is a general principle that is still true, IPs should be given on a needs basis<br>
</div>
<div style="">- No we don't think ARIN should start giving out less IPv6 addresses, or make it harder to get</div>
<div style="">- Yes this does conflict with IPv6 allocation / assignment policy which is currently not based on need</div>
<div style="">- The conflicting IPv6 allocation / assignment policy should still be used by ARIN</div>
<div style="">- The community concludes IPv6 allocation / assignment policy should have always be based on need </div>
<div style="">- The community should work to modify the NRPM to </div>
<div style=""> 1. Make IPv6 allocation / assignment policy based on need</div>
<div style=""> 2. point out the balance between aggregation and efficient utilization much more favors the former</div>
<div style=""> 3. ensure the needs based policy still results in the same allocation / assignment size</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div></div>
</div>
<div></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style=""> </div>
<div style="">If we proceed in this fashion, we can identify </div>
<div style="">- the non-controversial (non-ARIN policy changing) text,</div>
<div style="">- the community can deal with each piece of text that might change ARIN policy, and decide at a high </div>
<div style="">level to what extent the particular policy should impact ARIN policy</div>
<div style="">- decide what sort of changes is needed to what (this draft, other NRPM text, RSA, ARIN policy, etc)</div>
<div style="">- begin crafting those changes</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">My apologies to staff for the added work, but if done well, this will truly be something to be proud of.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>Jason - </div>
<div> </div>
<div> We work for you (the collective "you" being the entire community) and as such</div>
<div> are happy to do any additional work which will help the community in consideration</div>
<div> of draft policies. We normally would note any conflicts with existing practices</div>
<div> during staff and legal review (once requested by the AC) if it is not clear from </div>
<div> the policy text that the intent is to change those practices as well at adoption.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> I will note that performing this sort of assessment may identify some clearly</div>
<div> impacting aspects of the proposed text with existing registry practices, but not </div>
<div> as many as you might expect, as the inherent conflict between the various</div>
<div> proposed principles means that they can only be considered as a whole and </div>
<div> not "snippet by snippet" as you suggest.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Your example is a perfect illustration of this, in that you suggest that we might cite</div>
<div> the existing IPv6 allocation/assignment policy as impacted by proposed principle </div>
<div> "0.1.1. Documented Justified Need", but that is not possible because the policy is</div>
<div> set by the community is based on the balance between justified need and the need</div>
<div> for aggregation (i.e. proposed principle "0.2. Hierarchical Aggregation")... To the </div>
<div> extent that the balance is not optimum, that is ultimately for the community to </div>
<div> decide that and not the ARIN staff.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Phrases in the proposed principles such as "Internet number resources are valid as </div>
<div> long as the criteria continues to be met", "All Internet number resource requests are </div>
<div> subject to audit and verification by any means deemed appropriate by the regional</div>
<div> registry", and "The party trying to obtain the resources must meet the same criteria </div>
<div> as if they were requesting resources directly from the IR" (among others) will indeed</div>
<div> be highlighted in any staff and legal review due to conflicts with existing ARIN registry</div>
<div> operational practices, but it is up to the community to decide if, and to what extent,</div>
<div> existing policy does not align with balance inherent to these proposed principles.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>FYI,</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>ARIN</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>