[ppml] 2008-2 IPv4 transfer policy

[Cliff Bedore]

Scott Leibrand wrote:
> Cliff,
>
> Would 2008-2 do what you want if the "ARIN will create a listing 
> service" and related text were removed?
>
> -Scott

Scott
Not without additional changes. I'll list them below

Delete the following from 8.3.1

• The transferor has not received any IPv4 allocations or assignments 
from ARIN (through ordinary allocations or assignments, or through this 
Simple Transfer policy) within the preceding 24 months.
• The transferor may not request any IPv4 allocations or assignments 
from ARIN (through ordinary allocations or assignments, or through this 
Simple Transfer policy) within the subsequent 24 months.

Rationale At the time these changes would be valid, things will likely 
be changing rapidly and businesses will need flexibility to meet 
business requirements without being hamstrung by unneeded regulation by ARIN

Delete the following from 8.3.2

• The transferee has not provided any IPv4 addresses for transfer 
through this Simple Transfer process within the preceding 24 months.
• The transferee may not provide any IPv4 addresses for transfer through 
this Simple Transfer process within the subsequent 24 months, except in 
the case of business failure.
• The transferee may request and receive a contiguous CIDR block large 
enough to provide a 12 month supply of IPv4 addresses.
• The transferee may only receive one IPv4 address transfer through this 
Simple Transfer process every 6 months.

Rationale Same s for 8.3.1 above. I guess I think the market and 
business requirements should dictate requirements. I think that ARIN 
could use a fee structure to slow down excessive transfers.

8.3.5 Change the words "must seek" to "may seek" pre-qualification. or 
delete the section entirely.

Rationale. It shouldn't matter to ARIN if the requests are pre-qualified 
or not since ARIN would not be involved in anything regarding finding 
addresses for sale or wanted. The same amount of work will be involved 
in either case.

8.3.8 It seems like this should be covered by existing policy or it 
seems to be expanding ARIN's role in a company's business operations. 
Again this may not be a good idea considering this is at a time when 
companies need to be more nimble in their ability to use IPv4.

8.3.9 Obviously delete this section. The requirements of the second and 
third paragraphs should be covered by existing policy/procedures.

After all the discussions on this, I guess my opinion is that it's 
better to have ARIN retain loose control and at least keep track of what 
changes are being made rather than have tight controls that will be 
ignored which will cause greater chaos as IPv4 winds down.

Hope this makes sense to people.

Cliff

>
> Cliff Bedore wrote:
>>> > After reading lots (and LOTS) of comments on this proposal, it 
>>> seems to me
>>> > that a lot of the problems people have with it revolve around ARIN 
>>> becoming
>>> > actively involved in the transfer(sale) of v4 addresses. > I would 
>>> propose that ARIN not be actively involved in providing lists of
>>> > available addresses but only in approving transfers between 
>>> private parties. > If the proposal was modified to allow ARIN to 
>>> approve transfers between
>>> > private parties but have nothing to do with the details of the 
>>> "sale"...
>>>
>>> Yep, that's my thought exactly, and I suspect a lot of other people 
>>> agree.
>>>
>>> Any chance of your putting up a policy proposal that says that?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> I was kind of hoping the 2008-2 could be modified to say this rather 
>> than do
>> another policy proposal. If it requires another proposal to get this 
>> idea in,
>> then I'm against 2008-2 and will try to get another proposal for the 
>> next
>> meeting. (I assume it's to late for this one)
>>
>> Cliff
>>> -Bill
>>>
>>
>>
>