[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR Transfers - Shepherd's Inquiry
I remain vehemently against this policy. APNIC's justified need is not
ARIN's concern, ARIN's justified need is.
On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:42 AM, Scott Leibrand
<scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
> As much as I support inter-RIR transfers, and agree with Chris that we
> had strong support for this at San Juan, I think Marty is right that
> opinion on PPML is much more divided. I personally think that is
> because of the moderating and pragmaticizing influence of in-person
> discussion, not because overall sentiment has changed. But regardless,
> I won't oppose sending it for another round of discussion in Philly.
> After Thursday, I also plan to float some other ideas (which we've
> discussed here on the AC list) on PPML for inter-RIR transfer policy
> that avoids the requirement for needs-based local transfer policy at
> the receiving RIR. I think that will be necessary to actually allow
> any inter-RIR transfers to APNIC. Since the current proposals are
> no-ops unless APNIC changes their transfer policy in Busan, I'm ok
> waiting to discuss them at Philly as well.
> On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Chris Grundemann
>> <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 15:08, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I guess I'm not clear on what the consensus looks like at this point
>>>> since I'm under the impression that there is a significant lack of
>>>> support community wise.
>>> From the straw poll at the PPM in San Juan (116 in the room):
>>> 1) 2011-1 as written? 18 in favor, 11 against
>>> 2) The principle of creating an inter-RIR transfer policy? 41 in
>>> favor, 1 against
>>> 3) The principle of a needs-based inter-RIR transfer policy? 36 in
>>> favor, 2 against
>>> I believe that is exactly what rough consensus looks like. I am forced
>>> to characterize that as a _significant *show* of support_ and denounce
>>> your claim to the contrary.
>>>> But fair enough. Considering the lack of support overall though, I'd
>>>> strongly suggest abandonment as a serious issue for continued AC
>>> Repeating a falsehood does not make it so. The community as a whole
>>> has very clearly asked us to work on this policy.
>> With the current commentary in the thread offers a much different
>> picture. If you're saying that today and commenting on this proposal
>> now we have consensus. you are incorrect.
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> 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 issues.
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> 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 issues.
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions