[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Protective Usage TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Address
martin.hannigan at batelnet.bs
Tue Feb 10 21:25:31 EST 2009
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 3:33 PM, Leo Bicknell <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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML