[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 119: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy
On 10/13/10 12:53 PM, "Leo Bicknell" <bicknell at ufp.org> wrote:
> 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 particular (possibly outdated) text.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.
A rich company might also buy up address space to insure that their need is
going to be met. That's opposite of the nefarious condition you describe.
The "thwart a competitor" scenario is going to be too expensive and the best
way to thwart anyone is going to be to dual stack and beat them to the
proverbial punch IMHO.