<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 Jun 3, 2013, at 1:58 PM, Jason Schiller <<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div><font color="#0f61c8">
<blockquote type="cite">The point of this policy is to preserve our principles of stewardship. Up until now,<br>
the source of these principles has been RFC 2050. Many things reference it<br>
and it's principles when considering stewardship.<br>
<br>
If RFC 205bis passes, all of the stewardship language will be deprecated. <br>
<br>
This policy attempts to take those principles and place them in the NRPM.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</font></div>
Jason - </div>
<div> </div>
<div> RFC 2050 contained both "goals" (Conservation, Routability, Registration)</div>
<div> and "allocation guidelines"... You have taken components of both "goals"</div>
<div> and "allocation guidelines" and put them together into a set of RIR principles. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div> Given that we know that much of the "allocation guidelines" section has </div>
<div> been overtaken by community-based policy in each of the regions, it is a </div>
<div> valid question as to whether any language from the "allocation guidelines" </div>
<div> section should now suddenly be brought forward 15 years and made into </div>
<div> current policy in the region as "RIR Principles".</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">My attempt was not to be backwards looking, nor to revert current policy to <br>
what it was in 1996. In theory these principles have and continue to guide<br>
our policy making, and are still true, so we can simply copy them over.<br>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div> Note that RFC2050bis still contains Goals for the Internet Number Registry </div>
<div> System <<a href="http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt">http://www.ietf.org/id/draft-housley-rfc2050bis-01.txt</a>>, and these</div>
<div> include Allocation Pool Management, Hierarchical Allocation, and Registration</div>
<div> Accuracy, so it is not necessary to have a draft policy if the RIR Principles</div>
<div> that you are are covered by these goals.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>I made a conscious effort minimize modernizing the policy and believe I </div>
<div>did so only where the language we use has clarified the principle and is </div>
<div>consistent with current ARIN policy and operations. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite"><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>The thought here was to not change the status quo, and simply document</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>what is the already agreed upon basis of the current state of things.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The problem is that in some cases policy and practice has evolved </div>
<div>beyond the current RFC 2050 language, and based on some </div>
<div>interpretations conflicts with these principles. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I believe any conflicts are the result of incorporating "allocation policy"</div>
<div> from 15 years ago into your RIR principles, and that debate on what</div>
<div> additional principles (if any) are needed for the ARIN registry is indeed </div>
<div> a reasonable discussion for this mailing list independent of language</div>
<div> in the draft policy.</div>
<div><br>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>Should ARIN policy and operations be changed to match the principle?</div>
<div style="">(Did we make a wrong term and abandon a principle we should not have?)</div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">Should the principle be modified to make holes for the ARIN practice?</div>
<div style="">(The principle is true, but it doesn't apply here due to this history) </div>
<div style=""><br>
</div>
<div style="">Should the principle be documented as is, but ARIN to continue its practice</div>
<div style="">unchanged? (this is what we have now with the current state of RFC 2050)</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
I am unaware of any conflict between the three goals in RFC 2050 </div>
<div> (Conservation, Routability, Registration) and ARIN's existing policies </div>
<div> and practices. I am also unaware of any conflict in the proposed </div>
<div> RFC2050bis Goals and ARIN's existing policies and practices.</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div> </div>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div style="">These questions can only be answered once the staff assessment is complete, </div>
<div style="">and we understand to what extent this draft policy could influence current </div>
<div style="">ARIN policy and operations.</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
We will perform a staff assessment to determine what conflicts with existing</div>
<div> practices would be created by adoption of the draft policy. It is likely that </div>
<div> any such conflicts are result of language from the "allocation guidelines"</div>
<div> portion of the RFC2050 which is being refreshed as "RIR Principles" via</div>
<div> the draft policy.</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>
</body>
</html>