[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency TransferPolicyfor IPv4 Addresses - Last Call

[Randy Bush]

On 09.01.03 07:12, Geoff Huston wrote:
> I believe that the RIPE policy, which places RIPE in the role of
> a "market qualifier" places the RIPE NCC into a position that is
> unreasonable and, I suspect, untenable. I have the same problem with a
> recent policy proposal proposed in the APNIC region which contains
> similar words relating to the RIR performing some form of
> qualification of market participants. Such a role is one that exposes
> the RIR to extremely high levels of risk in terms of the potential
> liability in its assessment procedures and also places it into a role
> of market regulator where the RIR is singularly ill equipped to
> perform and it has no recognized mandate or authority to perform

but have been performing exactly that for some years.  enough folk seem 
to have requested to maintain that status quo that the transfer proposal 
in ripe passed with it and the new one in apnic includes it to see if 
that will help get apnic past the thrice repeated non-consensus of a 
proposal without it.  personally, i am not strongly religious either way.

> calls into question the RIR's current de facto monopoly position with
> respect to address distribution and price setting. The scale of risk
> here, as I see it, is appropriately phrased as a risk to the continued
> existence of the RIR structure itself.

this is new?  the rirs have chosen to walk this line for a long time. 
that it is getting thinner and thinner is no big shock.  that there is 
no obvious bump or narrowing in this path may have led the rirs to keep 
slowly walking it.  the level of self-righteousness in organizational 
self-preservation may have assisted :).

it would be interesting to see a movement to where the rirs got out of 
(needs based) regulation of ipv4 and ipv6.  i don't see much support for 
that in the arin or apnic communities.  i am not sure what this says for 
the good of the internet.

randy