On Apr 12, 2015, at 11:01 PM, Milton L Mueller
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Counsel is claiming that ICP-2 requires all usage of numbers to be bound to
exclusive RIR service regions
Milton -
Please provide reference for your statement above;
MM: When Counsel says “This policy would result in ARIN effectively providing
registry services to other regions” and “each RIR should serve its region” I
don’t think it is unreasonable to interpret that as meaning that all number
services should be obtained from the RIR where the numbers will be used.
Milton -
“ICP-2 requires all usage of numbers to be bound to exclusive RIR service
regions” is what you attribute to
Counsel, and it is very different issue than "ARIN effectively providing
registry services to other regions” -
two completely different concepts.
One is regarding how a recipient may make use of their assigned address space
whereas the other deals
with an RIR's behavior. You conflate this two distinct concepts to arrive at
a claim which was not made in
the staff & legal report, nor does the constraint how parties use their address
blocks appear in ICP-2.
MM: Does this mean that both you and the Counsel are not claiming that all
usage of numbers must be bound to the service region? I hope so.
Please explain why this is not inconsistent with Counsel’s interpretation of
ICP-2.
Again, how a party makes use of assigned space is not directly within ARIN’s
control once resources
are issued, whereas ARIN having policies which issue space knowingly for use
entirely within another
region is completely within ARIN’s control and raises a valid question about
commitment to the principles
in ICP-2.
MM: As you should know, the policy requires some presence in the region. It is
designed to aid organizations that want one-stop shopping.
It does indeed require some presence in our region, but draft policy 2014-1
would specifically have ARIN
issue number resources entirely for use in another region.
MM: Both you and counsel keep ignoring the requirement for some kind of
presence and established relationship with ARIN. …
The required presence and established relationship with ARIN only affects who
may apply, it does not
change the fact that the draft policy, if adopted, would have ARIN issue
numbers resources entirely for
use in another region. It is ARIN knowing issuing resources entirely for use
within another region which
raises the question about consistency with the intent and language of ICP-2.
MM: As for this:
"Each region should be served by a single RIR, established under one management
and in one location. The establishment of multiple RIRs in one region is likely
to lead to:
• fragmentation of address space allocated to the region;
• difficulty for co-ordination and co-operation between the RIRs;
• confusion for the community within the region.”
MM: Remember, ICP-2 was written to deal with the establishment of new RIRs. I
would agree that creating a new RIR that serves, say, Kansas and Nebraska and
giving it a distinct set of number blocks to distribute would fragment the
distribution of address space. But that Is not what this policy (2014-1) is
proposing. ICP-2 is basically not the right standard to use in assessing this
policy. You and Counsel have seized on it in an attempt to find an argument for
regional exclusivity, but it is not the right instrument. If you want a global
policy that says RIRs must confine address distribution to entities mainly in
their region, go create one. It doesn’t exist yet.
Actually, the relevant portion of ICP-2 shown above is quite clear regarding
intent for the servicing
of regions by RIRs. You might not like what it says, or wish that it said
something else, but it is an
agreed policy to which ARIN is a party. It is not clear if setting aside the
requirements therein will
have consequences to ARIN’s ability to perform its mission, but it is plain
that issuing space for use
entirely within another region is a departure from the intent of the policy.
As I said, ICP-2 does not say anything definitive about the issue we are
debating in 2014-1. Please stop using it for that purpose.
I understand your position, but do disagree as noted above.
MM: You misunderstand my position, which is that ICP-2 does not establish any
principles regarding out of region use policies of existing RIRs
“use” is about what an applicant does with their number resources. It is
unclear if ICP-2 was ever
intend to effect or constrain how recipients actually used resources received
from any RIR.
“service region” is about where an RIR issues number resources, and it is quite
clear that ICP-2
is intends that 'Each region should be served by a single RIR’. 2014-1 would
have ARIN issue
space knowingly and entirely within another region - whether that’s a good
thing or a bad thing
is something for the community to consider, but it would be contrary to intent
to language and
intent of ICP-2.
Here is what I have concluded from our exchange:
• Neither you nor the Counsel are claiming that all usage of numbers must
be bound to the service region
Milton - it is you who incorrectly stated that "Counsel is claiming that ICP-2
requires all usage of
numbers to be bound to exclusive RIR service regions”, i.e. a statement which
is not reflected in
actual staff and legal assessment for 2014-1 nor in ARIN’s practices. ICP-2
has no requirements
about how parties use their number resources; it has requirements only about
how RIR’s operate.
When asked to provide a reference supporting your claim of Counsel’s position,
you were unable
to provide any. This is not surprising, since the actual staff and legal
assessment simply notes
that providing resources which are for use entirely out of region may be
inconsistent with ICP-2;
it makes no statement at all regarding usage of ARIN-issued resources being
bound to the service
region.
I cannot tell if you are still unable to distinguish the difference between
policy that affects what
and how ARIN does its mission versus your incorrect statement attributed to
Counsel that ARIN
somehow constrains how recipients make use of their assigned number blocks, one
can hope
reading this response will help in that regard.
• You are not refuting or contesting my claim that the legal assessment
mistakenly asserted that the policy would allow entities with “no real
connection” to the ARIN region to use it as a registry.
There is much in your initial message and followup that I did not respond to -
please do not consider
that any form of endorsement or acceptance of your assertions therein. I only
responded with respect
to your ICP-2 remarks due to the false claim of statements made by Counsel.
• We have agreed that ICP-2 is not a global policy, but you do consider
it binding as part of the ASO MoU
• You still think ICP-2 is relevant to 2014-1, and I don’t.
Fair summary?
And with regards to your acknowledging your creation of claims by Counsel that
were in fact not made?
Did you come to any conclusions in that regard, and do intend at some point to
correct your remarks?
ARIN today issues number resources to parties that are sometimes used by
parties outside the ARIN service
region. ARIN does not issue resources based on demand out of region, but a
global enterprise can take
number resources today and use them anywhere, and 2014-1 is not necessary to
enable that.
What 2014-1 would allow is for an organization with a minimal level of
resources in region to request and
obtain number resources from ARIN entirely based on demand and for use outside
of the ARIN region.
This would have ARIN effectively providing registry services to another region,
which plainly does not
confirm with the language and intent of ICP-2. The implications, if any, to
ARIN’s ability to perform its
mission that may result by proceeding contrary to ICP-2 are unclear at this
time.
Thanks!
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
