[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 119: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy
In a message written on Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 08:45:31AM -0600, Chris Grundemann wrote:
> Thanks for the excellent feedback Leo. I do want to point out that
> when crafting this ultra-simple policy statement, we chose our words
> very carefully: Internet stewardship *and* the _values_ expressed in
> RFC2050 is meant to convey the spirit by which the RIRs should
> interact ("do the right thing") without binding them explicitly to any
> particular (possibly outdated) text.
For the record, I am ok with:
Policy statement: Any RIR's member may transfer IPv4 addresses to the
member of another RIR as long as the two RIRs agree.
Your second sentence should be redundant, as the RIR's were formed
under 2050, and should persue stweardship moving forward as a result.
Including it though I think provides the impression of some limitations
that are at best vague, and likely non-existant.
I used to be worried about a rich company buying up IPv4 space to
keep it from their competitors. As time as passed, I no longer
worry about that much.
If the price is high, the price may be a far better representation
of "need" than any of our current engineering based metrics. I do
not want to rule out the possibility that in one or more RIR regions
giving space to the highest bidder may well be needs based good
Since both RIR's have to agree, if ARIN doesn't share this vision
they need not participate in such a process, but if say, LACNIC and
AFRINIC both share that vision I see no reason to stand in their
way at the IANA level.
Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 826 bytes
Desc: not available