[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address

[Martin Hannigan]

On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com>wrote:

> Under the new policy development process, the ARIN AC has to decide whether
> to accept a policy proposal onto their docket, with the intent to develop it
> into a draft policy.  The AC then has the authority to make whatever changes
> to the policy are warranted.  Given that, my question to you (and to the
> community generally) is:
>
> Do you think the ARIN Advisory Council should accept this policy proposal
> as the basis for a draft policy to be discussed at an upcoming policy
> meeting?  Why or why not?
>




Yes, accept this policy.





>
> Thanks,
> Scott
>
> Martin Hannigan wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Leo Bicknell <bicknell at ufp.org <mailto:
>> bicknell at ufp.org>> wrote:
>>
>>    In a message written on Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 02:21:51PM -0500,
>>    Martin Hannigan wrote:
>>    >    Why do they have two years? These sales are taking place now, and
>>    >    unexpectedly.
>>
>>    I made the assumption that we were talking about transfer policy
>>    style transactions, which ARIN hasn't approved yet; and further
>>    that we were talking about above board transactions.  It seemed
>>    likely to me that above board transactions of that sort won't be
>>    approved until close to the free pool exhaustion.
>>
>>    If someone is doing something below board there are better ways to
>>    address that than policy changes.
>>
>>
>>
>> I mostly agree with you, Leo, except that this stuff isn't happening below
>> board. The existing policies are being followed. This is a symptom of our
>> failure to reach consensus on a transfer policy that reflects the reality of
>> the twenty first century Internet, not of a systemic corruptness.
>>
>> Getting back to the policy; I support the intent, but I think that the
>> author should clarify what they want us to do a little better. Maybe ask us
>> to establish a process that a resource holder, an impacted indirect party,
>> can challenge the legitimacy of "any" transfer instead of appeal it after
>> the fact (TINA)? Maybe even suggest that all transfers are required to be
>> publicly announced on the website for a minimum of 60 days prior to
>> execution so that any affected parties are guaranteed at least some notice.
>> Interesting transparency, to say the least.
>>
>> Best,
>>
>> -M<
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090211/0eb41a51/attachment.htm>