[address-policy-wg] 2009-01, Global Policy for the allocation of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries

Randy,

Can you give this list the source for your statement "arin policy wonks have
zero intent to return any /8s recovered from the us military to the iana.
and those /8s are specifically the subject of this lacnic proposal." 

As one of the original authors of this proposal which was drafted by persons
from all regions, I really have trouble understanding that this is a LACNIC
proposal.

Ray



-----Original Message-----
From: address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net
[mailto:address-policy-wg-admin at ripe.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
Sent: Thursday, October 01, 2009 18:32
To: Nigel Titley
Cc: Gert Doering; Filiz Yilmaz; RIPE Address Policy Working Group
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2009-01, Global Policy for the allocation
of IPv4 blocks to Regional Internet Registries

>> ARIN has a MAY here, both for recovery and return-to-IANA.
>> RIPE has a MUST here (it's still a "may" regarding recovery, but as
>> soon as it is recovered, it MUST be returned to IANA).
> There appears to be a certain amount of doubt as to whether the
> wording has to be identical or merely substantially the same

< tact=off >  < reality=on >

underlying the words is substantial disagreement.  arin policy wonks
have zero intent to return any /8s recovered from the us military to the
iana.  and those /8s are specifically the subject of this lacnic
proposal.

randy