[address-policy-wg] Policy proposal 2009-01

 I believe you are correct Carlos. (1.) would potentially move
 legacy IPv4 resource into the ARIN region from everywhere else
 in the world. (*)  

* Except some places which have their own legal restrictions on
movement of IP space outside thier politicial boundaries. When
I was on the ARIN BoT, I seem to remember a few countries which
placed such laws on their respective books.  It was generally
considered to be a bad idea ... and yet ARIN seems to have 
followed suit.

--bill


On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 08:18:33AM +0100, Carlos Friacas wrote:
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Going forward with (1.) means that potentially recovered space within 
> RIPE-land can end up in the hands of someone inside ARIN-land ???
> 
> Imho, those who wish not to contribute should not have access to the 
> recovered resources. Solidarity (even if it's about a legacy resource...) 
> sounds like a positive thing, however, if it's possible for 
> non-contributors to benefit, another word comes to mind. And in that case 
> i would be in favour of (3.) or (4.).
> 
> 
> Regards,
> Carlos
> 
> 
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010, Nigel Titley wrote:
> 
> >Folks,
> >
> >As one of the authors of this proposal I'd like to get some sort of
> >consensus together in the RIPE region so that we can move forward.
> >
> >All other regions have reached consensus and we are the last to do so.
> >
> >All other regions with the exception of Arin have adopted the policy in
> >it's original form. Arin has modified the policy to remove the mandatory
> >return of recovered address space to IANA, which effectively makes it a
> >different policy. 2009-01 is a global policy which means that the same
> >policy has to be agreed in all regions, so to all practical purposes it
> >is doomed already. However, we still need to decide what to do with it
> >in the RIPE region. To my mind there are four possibilities:
> >
> >1. We adopt it in its original form thus demonstrating solidarity with
> >the other regions, apart from Arin.
> >
> >2. We adopt the Arin form of the proposal, thus demonstrating solidarity
> >with Arin, but with no one else
> >
> >3. We reject the proposal outright, thus demonstrating that we can't
> >make up our minds or that we think it will never work, or something...
> >
> >4. We ask the regional authors (in this case myself and Axel) to
> >withdraw the proposal in this region.
> >
> >Some background may be helpful here. No one seriously expected that any
> >address space would actually be returned as a result of this policy. It
> >was intended as a statement that should IPv4 address space become
> >available then it would be used for the greater good of all the
> >registries rather than those who had already had the majority of the
> >space already. I realise that this was a rather pious hope, but we felt
> >that it was worth making a statement about.
> >
> >The Arin region's position has made it impossible to make this statement
> >globally, but we still have the opportunity to make it here. I would
> >like to solicit the opinions of this working group in order to try and
> >put the matter to bed once and for all.
> >
> >I realise I'm making rather contentious statements here, but I'm hoping
> >to provoke a bit of discussion. Please can the working group indicate
> >how they would like to move this forward.
> >
> >All the best
> >
> >Nigel
> >
> >