[arin-ppml] Should inter-regional transfers be part of 8.3? Was: ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Last Call
Thanks, Bill, for summarizing your suggested changes.
Does anyone in the community have input on Bill's item #1 (whether 2011-1
should be part of 8.3, or separated out as 8.4)?
Further comments inline...
On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:58 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
> > But I was hoping you (and anyone else with ideas) could provide actual
> > constructive feedback on how the text could be improved. If such
> > suggestions are being provided here on list, we can discuss whether they
> > potential improvements we should incorporate.
> Hi Scott,
> 1. Pull it out of section 8.3 and put it in its own section 8.4. At no
> time in the process do I recall the community express a desire to
> tamper with section 8.3 as part of the inter-region transfer process.
> While such integration may become desirable in the future it is, IMHO,
> not desirable now. We should implement, learn from and tune the
> inter-region policy long before considering whether or how to
> integrate it with the in-region transfer policy.
I personally disagree, but I think it's a valid point, and would be happy to
adjust the text accordingly if the community agrees that we should do so.
> 2. Earlier drafts required potential recipients to meet the
> eligibility criteria set by BOTH regions. While this increases the
> hassle factor associated with transferring addresses in or out of the
> region, I believe it provides a valuable safeguard for this, our first
> attempt at inter-region transfers. If, over time, we find that it's
> all hassle for no benefit, we can remove it.
When that was put in place prior to the APNIC Busan meeting, I agree it was
a valuable safeguard. But now that all the RIRs' transfer policies are
needs-based, I believe this would just be an extra hassle with no real
benefit. In addition, part of APNIC's reason for re-adding needs basis to
their transfer policy was to avoid having to justify needs to ARIN. So in
addition to being unnecessary, I believe a requirement to have ARIN do such
a needs justification on out-of-region transfer recipients is harmful to the
spirit of inter-RIR cooperation.
It's also worth noting that this topic was discussed in Philly, and my sense
of the room was that there was a consensus for the destination RIR doing the
> 3. Who determines that ARIN and another RIR "share compatible,
> needs-based policies?" Unless we set out explicit criteria, this is an
> open-ended policy-level question which should be decided by
> policy-level people, i.e. the Board. NOT by staff. I offered this
> criticism on the earlier drafts as well and I'm disappointed to see it
> hasn't been addressed.
We discussed this. John can elaborate, but the gist was that an RIR with a
transfer policy that requires that a transfer recipient justify need to
their RIR would be a compatible transfer policy. By contrast, a transfer
policy where the transfer recipient simply must attest that they have need
would not be compatible. I believe that is exactly what the community wants
here, so I don't see this as an issue.
> > If not, the choice is between
> > moving forward or delaying. I'm not sure how delaying another 6 months
> > helps.
> I have some other nitpicks, but without first correcting these large
> issues, I'm with Marty: good try but you failed to capture the
> community's intent. The newly written draft would benefit from another
> cycle of discussion, modification and presentation so that it can move
> forward with consensus on the actual policy language.
> Bill Herrin
> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com bill at herrin.us
> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...