<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; "><br><div><div>On Jun 1, 2013, at 12:24 PM, Andrew Dul <<a href="mailto:andrew.dul@quark.net">andrew.dul@quark.net</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite">
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Jason, further comments inline.<br>
<br>
On 5/30/2013 10:18 PM, Jason Schiller wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote cite="mid:CAC4yj2XMe-kecYXb5_t48VdtmhVVjDkpaM0tEjyh2O8SH8c8zA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Andrew,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
(Putting aside the RFC-2050 3.1 - does this create a new ability
to revoke legacy IPs for the other thread)
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Your comments boil down to:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>1. <span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">it
comes down to "modernizing" the 2050 text/principles</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">2.
keeping principles in the principles section and not putting
specific policy in the principles section.</span></div>
<div><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">In
general I agree with both.</span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">I tried to start
with 2050 text/principles, and only attempted to go beyond
that text where it helped,</font></div>
<div style=""> <font face="arial, sans-serif">e.g. such
as substituting "efficient use" for conservation (nobody
uses conservation) but still paying </font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">homage </font><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">to the conservation
section that this principle</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> stems from.</span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">It is possible that
some of the language from 2050 is to detailed or "policy
specific" and should be </font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">stripped away </font><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">and moved into other
more relevant sections of the NRPM. This may be a bit
tricky to </span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif">do
in separate</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"> proposals
as you want both things to happen. </span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif"><br>
</span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">I propose we
ether initially adopt, then decide if certain details should
be moved elsewhere, or </font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">figure out which
specific details should be moved where,and include them in
this proposal (or both).</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style=""> <font face="arial, sans-serif">But just because
there already is a detailed section on say transfers,
doesn't mean it shouldn't also </font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">be included in the
principles section that</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">"</font><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">The
transfer of Internet number resources from one party to
another must be approved by the regional </span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
registries. The party trying to obtain the resources must
meet the same criteria as if they were </span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">
requesting resources directly from the IR."</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
I think having a transfers section in the principles, document is
appropriate, I would point out that today the transfer policies are
different from the direct RIR policies, e.g. 24months vs. 3 months.
So today we don't follow the above principle.<br>
<br>
I'd propose the following updated text:<br>
<br>
<big><big><tt><span style="font-size: 13.3333px;">The transfer of
Internet number resources from one organization to another
must be approved by a RIR. Transfer policies are created by
Internet stakeholders through the community driven policy
development process.</span></tt><tt><span style="font-size:
13.3333px;"></span></tt></big></big><br>
<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>IMHO, this is unnecessary doublespeak.</div><div><br></div><div>Having a community policy document that is the result of a community development process state that the other parts of the same document are developed through that same document seems redundant to me. The ARIN bylaws and articles of incorporation cover the existence of the PDP rather well. The PDP itself is also well documented elsewhere. I don't believe we need to summarize it again in the NRPM specifically with respect to transfers.</div><div><br></div><div>I don't see any need to call transfers out specifically in the principles separate from other policies.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<blockquote cite="mid:CAC4yj2XMe-kecYXb5_t48VdtmhVVjDkpaM0tEjyh2O8SH8c8zA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"><br>
</span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">One
could image that the ARIN community decides that there
should be no transfers, and all </span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">redistribution</font><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px"> of
addresses should be through return to IANA and split equally
among the RIRs.</span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">In this case the
ARIN community could abolish the text on transfers.
Would we then loose the</font></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">principle
that if a transfer was to happen (say a new transfer policy
in the future) it should be</span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">governed
by the same principles of getting address space directly
from the RIRs? </span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif"><br></font></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I don't see that as likely. However, if it were to occur, it would be just as likely to strike the above proposed language from the principles text at the same time. Requiring another section to be modified when changing policies just for the sake of having another section to modify doesn't make sense to me.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><blockquote cite="mid:CAC4yj2XMe-kecYXb5_t48VdtmhVVjDkpaM0tEjyh2O8SH8c8zA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
While using "sustainability" instead of "conservation" would be a
textual change, it might be a positive change. To me what the RIRs
do with number resources today are more closely aligned with the
definition of sustainability vs conservation. <br>
<br>
Sustainability to me means managing a resource for all
stakeholders. Conservation sometimes means preserving the status
quo or excluding certain uses to protect the resource.<br>
<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>+1</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
The word "conservation" appears 3 times in the current posted
draft. Just substituting the word "sustainability" seems to make
sense to me. This might however be too much a of a jump for others.<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:CAC4yj2XMe-kecYXb5_t48VdtmhVVjDkpaM0tEjyh2O8SH8c8zA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style=""> <br>
</div>
<div style="">4. documentation to promote increased utilization</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">So I think there are a number of reasons accurate
documentation is important, </div>
<div style="">and I think one of them is so that the RIR can
measure utilization and judge </div>
<div style="">current usage prior to deciding to give additional
space. This process causes</div>
<div style="">more efficient utilization over all.</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">I think this aspect is important, and should be
included. It is possible the some </div>
<div style="">word smithing may be in order. </div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">"Resource
holders will be required to provide an accounting of
resources currently held </span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">in
order to provide the necessary transparency and
accountability. This information provides</span></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">IRs the ability to
measure efficient utilization of current space prior to
allocating or assigning</font></div>
<div style=""><font face="arial, sans-serif">additional space."</font></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<font face="arial, sans-serif"><br>
I the above proposed text is pretty good. <br>
</font><br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I don't like the title of point 4. I do like the text. I would propose:</div><div><br></div><div>4. Documentation of Use of Number Resources</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<blockquote cite="mid:CAC4yj2XMe-kecYXb5_t48VdtmhVVjDkpaM0tEjyh2O8SH8c8zA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">5. transfers</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">I agree, the details of transfer policy should be
in the "main" portion of the NRPM, and already is, </div>
<div style="">and that is where the details of transfers should
be documented.</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">But I also think RFC-2050 gives us some high level
guiding principles wrt transfers:<br>
A. RIRs must approve<br>
B. must be consistent with the criteria as if they were
requesting an IP address directly</div>
<div style=""><br></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Both of those are already enshrined in the existing transfer policy. I don't see any benefit to moving it elsewhere.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><blockquote cite="mid:CAC4yj2XMe-kecYXb5_t48VdtmhVVjDkpaM0tEjyh2O8SH8c8zA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite"><div dir="ltr"><div style="">
</div>
<div style="">I think these principles should be included.</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">I am not opposed to the text "RIRs shall determine
IP number resources transfer policies through </div>
<div style="">the<span style="font-size:13.333333969116211px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">ir
community driven policy development process." In fact all
policies (except emergency ones) </span></div>
<div style=""><span style="font-size:13.333333969116211px;font-family:arial,sans-serif">are
determined by the community through the PDP...b</span><span style="font-family:arial,sans-serif;font-size:13.333333969116211px">ut
I'm not sure that changes anything.</span></div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
See above proposed text and comments.<br>
<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Actually, all policies, including emergency ones are ultimately determined by the community through the PDP. The difference is that in the case of an emergency policy, it is implemented first and PDP'd later.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<blockquote cite="mid:CAC4yj2XMe-kecYXb5_t48VdtmhVVjDkpaM0tEjyh2O8SH8c8zA@mail.gmail.com" type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="">6. audit</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">I think some guiding principle text is important
here. This text was lifter from RFC-2050. </div>
<div style="">Again, not intending to create
new capabilities here, but think this principle (in some form
is important)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">If the community thinks it is superseded by text
in the NRPM and RSA, I am happy to use that text as </div>
<div style="">a basis for pulling out some high-level
principles.</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">Is there RSA or NRPM text that is high level
enough to use here? How would you propose to create</div>
<div style="">high level principles from the RSA and NRPM text?</div>
<div style=""><br></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I believe audit is adequately covered in NRPM 12. If you believe otherwise, please state what you specifically think is deficient.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div><br></body></html>