[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR Transfers - Shepherd'sInquiry
Thanks for your reply and the crispness with which you stated your
objection. I think this is precisely the sort of feedback I and the
community are looking for (and need) in order to go into the Philly
meeting with a chance to finally debate the really pertinent sticking
points, resolve to act, and do so to get an Inter-RIR transfer policy in
From: Mike Burns [mailto:mike at nationwideinc.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:14 AM
To: Bill Darte; arin ppml
Cc: Robert E. Seastrom
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR
Transfers - Shepherd'sInquiry
Opposed because it prevents the regions with the largest number
of allocations from transferring to the region with the highest demand
due to language about needs-based policies.
Stewards of these resources should seek cooperation between
regions and not seek to exacerbate nuances of difference about views of
stewardship at the cost of ostracizing those who think differently.
Is it really necessary to poke APNIC in the eye just because
their stewards consider these needs policies a risk to Whois accuracy?
Even if we believe their conclusion is wrong, is it worth the
discord engendered by the proposed language?
Can't we operate on the basis that each registry community is
acting as honest stewards and not erect barriers when we disagree?
I mean, we still have to agree to any transfers. Leaving us free
to make decisions based on individual circumstances, rather than
explicitly excluding all Asian transfers.
All we are doing is driving such transfers underground.
(Since Bill is looking for concise feedback and not a rehash of
prior discussions, please consider my questions rhetorical.)
Maybe I would change the language from "needs-based policies on
behalf of entities" to "needs-based policies applying to entities"
because I think it is more accurate.
----- Original Message -----
From: Bill Darte <mailto:BillD at cait.wustl.edu>
To: arin ppml <mailto:ppml at arin.net>
Cc: Robert E. Seastrom <mailto:rs at seastrom.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:30 AM
Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR
Transfers - Shepherd'sInquiry
Please provide you immediate, concise feeback which
states your position for or against the DP as changed from its earlier
version and any reasoning you may wish to provide.
I am proposing that the original Draft Policy 2011-1:
Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy
Be renamed.... Draft Policy 2011-1: Inter-RIR
and that the DP text be modified to the following to
accommodate the many insights and concerns shared with me and the AC by
members of the community and the AC itself.
"Address resources may be transferred.... in or out of
the ARIN region to those who demonstrate need and plan to deploy them
for a networking purpose within 3 months. Such transfers will take place
between RIRs who share compatible, needs-based policies on behalf of
entities agreeing to the transfer and which otherwise meet both RIR's
policies. Transferred resources will become part of the resource
holdings of the recipient RIR unless otherwise agreed by both RIRs."
Reasoning....It is explicit about..
in or out of region,
that transfers are between RIRs that support needs-based
that RIRs have to agree,
that parties meet all of both RIR policies
that it is needs based, and the need is for a networking
that the receiving RIR is entitled to the addresses
I think all these details were raised as objections at
one time or another...so it seems best to waste a few more words to be
It is not explicit about...
utilization of prior allocations, assignments or
Nor should it be, IMO
Thank you for your continuing involvement in the ARIN
Policy Development Process.
Primary Shepherd DP 2011-1
You are receiving this message because you are
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List
(ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...