[arin-ppml] Revision to Policy Proposal: Sunset 2008-6/2009-1 on schedule
schnizlein at isoc.org
Tue Apr 7 12:06:13 EDT 2009
I fear that some revisionist history (at least different from what I
saw) has crept into the discussion.
The long discussion of Policy Proposal 2008-2 IPv4 Transfer Policy
came to an end October when it did not reach consensus in the room in
LA. While there were several sources of its failure, one that I heard
from many people was that it was too complicated. That this
complication spelled its doom might have been clear from the results
of the survey taken in advance of the meeting. Although that survey
indicated strong support for a transfer policy (86.7% to 13.3%
question 11) the question was conditioned "consistent with your
answers above", and others on which there was contention.
Requirements for signing an RSA (57.1% to 42.9% in favor), pre-
qualification of the donor (51% to 49% in favor), and pre-
qualification of the recipient (71.9% to 28.1% in favor) indicated
divided opinion on complicating terms.
On the subject of sunset (expiration of the policy) there was
contention with 44.5% in favor and 55.5% against.
The simple alternative Policy Proposal 2008-6 Emergency Transfer
Policy was introduced as a fall-back waiting in the shadow of the
complicated 2008-2, and won at the end of vigorous discussion in LA.
Emergency Transfer has been argued, mostly by those who oppose any
transfer policy, as safer than a policy without a sunset because it is
made deliberately provisional. Partly taking back the transfer policy
might appeal to those who oppose it, and reasonable arguments have
been put forward that the specified end of transfers undermines the
intent of the transfer policy.
Now that RIPE and APNIC have transfer policies (at different stages of
completion), the argument for similar policies among regions works
against "restoring" a clause in the Emergency Transfer policy that was
not strongly supported in the poll. Re-surveying with the same
questions as last year (possibly with more clarity about who is
required to pre-qualify in questions 5 &6) might indicate if the
balance of views has actually changed.
On 2009Apr7, at 9:58 AM, Member Services wrote:
> Policy Proposal Name: Sunset 2008-6/2009-1 on schedule
> Policy Rationale: Part of the policy that the community developed
> for in 2008-6 included a sunset clause. The ARIN Board in an
> action chose to discard this clause while approving the remainder of
> remainder of the policy. This proposal is intended to restore the
> will of the
> community and ensure that this policy remains temporary as intended.
More information about the ARIN-PPML