[arin-ppml] ARIN Board Statement on Transfer Policy Status and Timing

[Andrew Dul]

John & Board, et al.,

Thank you for providing a written response regarding the thoughts of the Board regarding the proposal of 2009-1.  

Here are my comments strictly on the substance of the proposed policy.

> 5) It refers to "number resources" rather than specifically IPv4 addresses, in an effort
> to retain simplicity and policy uniformity within the Number Resource Policy
> Manual; and

While the "number resources" language may be more consistent with the rest of the NRPM.  I do not believe a relaxed transfer policy is necessary nor is it desired for IPv6 or ASNs.  All of the discussions over the past couple of years have strictly been focused on a relaxed transfer policy for IPv4.  

> 6) It clarifies the NRPM definition of "organization" in a way that the Board
> considers should prevent gaming of the transfer policy by malefactors, a matter
> the community had expressed significant concern about in the discussion of
> policy proposal 2008-6.

"Organization" has been used very loosely by those of us who have crafted the policies in the NRPM over the past years.  While a strict definition may be appropriate for a relaxed transfer policy I do not feel that the rest of the NRPM should automatically be subject to the new definition.  There maybe cases where this new definition changes current ARIN staff practice with regard to assignments and allocations that are currently being made.  Specifically as this policy proposal is discussed further comment from ARIN staff with regard to this change would be extremely valuable.

Thanks,
Andrew