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

Bill Darte BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Tue Sep 30 15:51:49 EDT 2008

Thanks for being on topic with your response Chris.

You are correct....about ARIN as an intermediary.  Arin not a 'transfer
intermediary' is perhaps better....if at all.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Grundemann [mailto:cgrundemann at gmail.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2008 1:59 PM
> To: Bill Darte
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy 
> for IPv4 Addresses
> 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 conditions:"
> 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 market.
> 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-) ~Chris
> 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > PPML
> > 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
> www.linkedin.com/in/cgrundemann

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list