Re: [sig-policy] prop-086: Global policy for IPv4 allocations by the IAN
On Aug 26, 2010, at 2:13 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>> As Philip noted, 'no proposal should meddle in a regions
>> affairs'. There is a clear correlation between the APNIC regions
>> non-needs based transfer policy and the ARIN region declining to
>> signup for mandatory address returns. 1:1.
> i.e. arin wants to meddle in other regions' affairs on transfer
>> Seems like the ball is squarely in the APNIC regions court.
> once again. all, that is ALL, regions except arin came to agreement on
> a policy. the location of the ball is pretty obvious.
In a world where each region has veto power for global policy, I think it
is more productive to identify policy that all regions can agree to than to
stand back and finger-point at the one that cast the veto.
I will point out that ARIN was willing to agree to all but one provision of
the global policy. From my perspective, ARIN has no desire to meddle
in APNICs affairs, merely a desire not to be forced to hand space off
to APNIC knowing that it could be allocated without a needs basis.
This is much like countries (e.g. Australia) not wanting to extradite
prisoners until they can get an assurance from the destination country
that they will not seek the death penalty. I don't consider that a case
of Australia attempting to meddle in US affairs. I consider that a
case of Australia not wanting to hand someone over unless they
know that doing so will not violate their perceived moral obligations.