[arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses

Chris Grundemann cgrundemann at gmail.com
Tue Sep 30 14:59:15 EDT 2008

Comments on 2008-6:

0) Basic disclosure; I am still very much on the fence about a
liberalized transfer policy in general but I want to make sure that if
I do end up on the yes side of that fence, there is an acceptable
policy available =).

1) "For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, transfer of
ARIN IPv4 addresses between two entities in the ARIN region, without
the active involvement of ARIN as an intermediary, will be considered
legitimate and will be documented accordingly under the following
Does "without the active involvement of ARIN as an intermediary," mean
that if ARIN does act as an intermediary the transfer will not be
considered legitimate?  I believe this was explained previously to be
taken as a distinction from the current process of an organization
returning unneeded space to ARIN and that space being subsequently
allocated by ARIN to another organization.  In any case I find it
slightly confusing and unnecessary, maybe it is a quibble but I would
strike it.

2) I think that there should be one further condition added.  A
constraint on the transferor barring the transfer of recently acquired
IPv4.  I believe that this is a simple and necessary precaution
against pure IP dealers/speculators etc emerging and potentially
poisoning any legitimate market that does emerge.

3) In contrast to 2008-2, the benefit of this proposal is its
simplicity and the stated intention that it be held in reserve until
such time as the board deems it absolutely necessary (of course the
latter could easily be applied to 2008-2 as well).  Focusing on the
former; I believe that the simplicity is a benefit because if such a
time arises that the need for a more liberal transfer policy is
evident, that policy's effectiveness will hinge upon organizations
actually following it.  What I really don't want is a liberalized
transfer policy that is ignored in favor of a more efficacious black

4) The negative is that I do see merit in most of the detailed
restrictions written into 2008-2 and I fear that should 2008-6 ever be
adopted the policy process may be too slow to react to problems that
arose in the created market.  At this time I feel that this negative
aspect is outweighed by the need to keep such a policy easy to follow
and by the fact that we really do not know what problems will need
addressing in an IP market so trying to address them all now may very
well be futile.

These comments are mine alone and are subject to change with or
without further notice  8-)

On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 9:00 AM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> As the Oct 15 ARIN Public Policy Meeting comes closer, I would like to
> again ask anyone who has not commented (or sufficiently) on this policy
> proposal to do so.  Especially, I am interested in what you think are
> the positive or negative aspects of this proposal in contrast to 2008-2
> the more elaborate and detailed proposal.
> 2008-6 was promulgated as an alternative to 2008-6 for those who believe
> that 1./ a more liberal transfer policy is in the best interest of the
> industry and, 2./ feel that it would be easier to pass it and then
> modify it as needed in the future, should 2008-2 fail to gain consensus
> across all of its nuance.
> As always, I thank you for your involvement and insight into the policy
> evaluation process of ARIN.  Your participation makes the role of the AC
> much easier and the overall process more rigorous.
> Bill Darte
> ARIN Advisory Council
> _______________________________________________
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

Chris Grundemann

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list