[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal: Sunset Clause for Liberalized Transfer Policy
farmer at umn.edu
Thu Jun 4 17:33:38 EDT 2009
I am of mixed mind on this proposal. I support this or a very similar proposal
progressing to Draft Policy and being presented at ARIN XXIV this fall for
discussion and consideration. However, my current opinion is the transfer
policy is better off without a sunset clause. That said, I'm not strongly
opposed to a sunset clause and don't think a well crafted Sunset Clause with
a thoughtfully selected date to be a great detriment either.
Let me explain in more detail;
2009-1 was initiated through the Emergency PDP clause of the PDP, and I
believe this was correct for the board to do as this issue has progressed to
the point where urgent action is necessary. As such 2009-1 will be
presented for review at ARIN XXIV this fall as well. Therefore, I believe it is
prudent and proper to present the counter proposal for the primary point of
contention arising from the 2009-1 at the meeting as well. In this way if the
community's consensus were to be that a Sunset Clause should be restored
another policy meeting cycle would not be necessary to implement the
IPv4 exhaustion and the Transfer Policy debate are the most important
issues that ARIN has dealt with since it was created by far. Furthermore,
2009-1 is the first time an emergency policy process has been used.
Honestly, it is only the most important issues, which will always have some
controversy surrounding them, that warrant the use of emergency powers.
Therefore, it is very important how we settle the controversy surrounding
emergencies, even if it has to be done after the fact because of the urgent
nature of an emergency situation.
Therefore, I ask all of us that support 2009-1 as it written, without the Sunset
Clause, to think about being in the minority position of the next very
important very urgent issue that results in a use of emergency powers and
how you would like to see that controversy settled.
In that case, and in this one too, I would like the minority position to have the
opportunity to fully express their opinion and directly place their best counter
proposal in front of the community for discussion and consideration. This is
especially important when emergency powers are used, the emergency PDP
changes the order from the normal process to having the full discussion and
consideration after the policy is adopted.
So to summarize, I support this proposal moving forward to Draft Policy and
to be brought to ARIN XXIV for discussion and consideration, while I do not
support the ultimate policy objective of the proposal. One way or another the
removal of the Sunset Clause as part of 2009-1 is going to be discussed at
ARIN XXIV. I simply suggest we take the issue head-on through this
On 4 Jun 2009 Member Services wrote:
> ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the
> Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with Policy
> Development Process.
> ## * ##
> Policy Proposal Name: Sunset Clause for Liberalized Transfer Policy
> Proposal Originator: Owen DeLong
> Proposal Version: 1.0
> Date: 4 June 2009
> Proposal type: delete
> Policy term: permanent
> Policy statement:
> Section 8.3, "Transfers to Specified Recipients", of the NRPM is
> deleted upon the effective date of this policy.
> When the community reached consensus in support of 2008-6, it
> contained a sunset clause. In the process of developing 2009-1, the
> sunset clause was removed. The effect of this policy proposal is to
> restore the sunset clause while adopting a more rational date at which
> to sunset the policy.
> Timetable for implementation:
> 31 December, 2013
> 3 years after IANA issues the last /8s to the RIRs,
> whichever is later.
David Farmer Email:farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
Networking & Telecomunication Services
University of Minnesota Phone: 612-626-0815
2218 University Ave SE Cell: 612-812-9952
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 FAX: 612-626-1818
More information about the ARIN-PPML