[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR Transfers - Shepherd's Inquiry
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Hannigan [mailto:hannigan at gmail.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 11:51 AM
> To: Bill Darte
> Cc: arin ppml; Robert E. Seastrom
> Subject: Re: [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:
> > Hello,
> > 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?
The simple answere to your question is that many of the NO votes for forwarding to last call were based upon 'clarity' issues not on the overall sentiment of the community as voiced on the PPML and at the Puerto Rico Public Policy Meeting. I am pursuing that clarity and incoporating other feedback from PR PPM and the AC meeting where the votes you identify were taken.
I will also consider the questions you pose above as part of my shepherd's duty. I'm sure the rest of community will also incorporate those considerations.