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

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Wed Feb 11 00:43:49 EST 2009

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?


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<
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list