[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR Transfers - Shepherd's Inquiry
On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 10:30 AM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> 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 Transfers...
[ clip ]
> Reasoning....It is explicit about..
> in or out of region,
> that transfers are between RIRs that support needs-based policies,
> 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 purpose,
> 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 explicit.
> It is not explicit about...
> block sizes
> utilization of prior allocations, assignments or transfers
> RFC 2050
> subsequent transfers
> Nor should it be, IMO
What about transfers that are later returned to the RIR that received?
What about addresses that were transferred en masse to an RIR that
suddenly changes its policies (as they are more than entitled to) and
abandons needs as a basis for allocations and proceeds to profit from
the addresses? These aren't hypothetical considerations. What about
regions that have more than adequate addresses to facilitate regional
needs considering that some are locking down their addresses to be
used in-region only? There are a lot of unanswered questions with
respect to this proposal regardless of what it may be named.
I've read Mike Burns comments. I agree with him, mostly, be he seems
to argue (knowingly or not) for allowing market forces to operate as
they would which doesn't require a policy like this. Others are
arguing that we need to "help other regions". I agree, but sending our
colleagues life rafts with holes in them won't help.
I'm not in favor of this proposal. Renaming this policy and
resuscitating it from certain death globally is an inadequate way to
address all of the complicated questions that may/would/continue to be
asked in order to move it through those difficult processes regardless
of which policy regime supporters attempt to push it through.
There also appears to be a lack of agreement in the community and on the AC:
"The motion to forward to Last Call failed with 8 against (DA, OD, DF,
MH, SH, CM, BS, JS) and 3 in favor (SL, BD, CG) via roll call."
Is abandonment on the table? If not, why would we not consider abandoning?