[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy - Staff Assessment

[Stephen Sprunk]

Member Services wrote:
> 1. In section 2.8, the term organization is defined as one “parent” organization be responsible for all of its associated companies’ or subsidiaries’ interactions with ARIN. Today ARIN allows companies and their subsidiaries to open multiple accounts in order to accommodate their network needs, completely independent of their organization/legal structure. If this definition is applied exactly as written, it could affect many policies in NRPM that contain the term organization and could also affect ARIN’s customers ability to manage their networks independently.
>   

This change is sufficient reason for me to oppose 2009-1 as written.  
The term "organization" is used liberally in the NRPM and all of those 
past policies were adopted expecting a very different meaning of that 
word than the one this proposal assigns it.  As a consequence, this 
radically changes the meaning and effect of virtually every policy in 
the NRPM.  The Board's statement says that this change was intended to 
prevent "gaming of the transfer policy", but I can neither see how it 
would do so nor fathom how anyone would think that such a benefit (if we 
accept the BoT's claims as true) is worth the staggering costs to the 
community (and ARIN staff).

I agree that the ambiguity today in the meaning of "organization" is not 
ideal, and it probably should be clarified.  However, I do not think 
that this proposal is the right place to do it, nor do I think that this 
new definition is the one we want.  At minimum, it demands its own proposal.

> The core of 2009-1 is an NRPM friendly restatement of the policy sent to the Board by the AC.

With all due respect, I find this very misleading.  A "restatement" 
implies that the changes are editorial, not material, and 2009-1 
contains several material changes in addition to a few that appear to be 
editorial.  I don't hear anyone complaining about the editorial ones.

> It contains several language changes suggested by counsel and others from Board members. The proposed policy significantly reduces legal risks, fees and expenses for ARIN.

I think I've established a long record of deferring to counsel's 
expertise and would lean heavily toward accepting any changes (whether 
editorial or material) that were in keeping with the general spirit of 
the proposal, but without knowing which specific changes counsel is 
referring to here and what the legal justification is for each, I'm 
having a very hard time in this case.

> Facts available indicate a nascent black market in number resource transfers has begun, transfers are being made in contravention of ARIN policy, and these would continue to expand in number and importance absent immediate implementation of a policy like 2009-1. By providing a clear transfer policy, consistent with RFC 2008 and RFC 2050, 2009-1 will also result in the appropriate and useful transfer of unused or under utilized IPV4 number resources to organizations who need them. Therefore, it may provide a critical cushion of time for recipients of resources who utilize the policy in the period when exhaustion of new IPV4 resources is becoming imminent or is occurring. This is consistent with ARIN's mission with regard to fair allocation. The new policy also provides a substantial beneficial reason for legacy holders to sign LRSAs, which, in turn, will provide important benefits to ARIN, the law enforcement community, and Internet community.
>   

While I agree with these comments, AFAICT, they also apply to 2008-6 as 
adopted and, therefore, are not relevant to the discussion of 2009-1.

> One aspect of 2009-1 is materially different from 2008-6 – specifically
> the three year sunset provision in 2008-6 has not been included. Counsel
> did not ask for this change, but believes it is useful from a legal perspective.

Thanks for the specific example and justification; after reading the 
various PPML threads I have come to support this specific change, and 
for the same reasons that counsel finds it "useful".  However, due to 
all of the other baggage in 2009-1, I still cannot support this 
particular proposal as written.

> Counsel has no position on the definition of organization.
>   

Again, thanks for the specificity.

However, that does beg the question of what change counsel _did_ 
request, since it was neither of the two most controversial parts of the 
proposal...

> IV. Resource Impact – Moderate
>
> ...
> • All internal registration procedures to be rewritten in order to accommodate the new definition of organization.
>   

See above (top).

S

-- 
Stephen Sprunk         "God does not play dice."  --Albert Einstein
CCIE #3723         "God is an inveterate gambler, and He throws the
K5SSS        dice at every possible opportunity." --Stephen Hawking


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3241 bytes
Desc: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090423/902796d8/attachment.bin>