[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy (Using the Emergency PDP)

[Owen DeLong]

>
> So what else is there related to the text itself;
>
> 1. 2008-6 included the following language, "Number resources may  
> only be
> received under RSA", and I don't see that anywhere in the 2009-1  
> language.
>
> John Curran side in the another email "the material change made to the
> transfer policy by the ARIN Board is removal of the 3 year sunset  
> clause."
>
The 2009-1 text requires the addresses to be returned by ARIN then  
issued
to the third party.  As such, I believe it is implicit that ARIN would  
require an
RSA from the third party prior to issuing the addresses to them.

> If you assume that all resources assigned through the NPRM are  
> covered by

> the RSA then I might agree this is not a "material change" but I  
> would like to
> confirm that interpretation or better understand why this is not  
> included in the
> text of 2009-1.
>
I don't think that the RSA facts change, but, I do think that direct  
transfers
recorded by ARIN vs. transfers through ARIN is a material change.  I am
not sure what the implications of such a change are, but, I am  
inclined to
believe that there is wisdom in having the transfers go through ARIN
instead of merely having ARIN record them.

> 2. Within 2008-6 the title of section 8.4 was "Emergency Transfer  
> Policy for
> IPv4 Addresses".  In my opinion this title explicitly limited the  
> transfers, other
> than by Mergers and Acquisitions to IPv4 resources only.  In 2009-1  
> the title
> of 8.3 is "Transfers to Specified Recipients" and doesn't otherwise  
> include
> any specific language to limit this to IPv4 resources only.   
> Therefore, I must
> conclude this would include IPv6 and ASN resource too.  If this is  
> actually
> the Board's intent, in my opinion this far exceeds the community's  
> intent in
> 2008-6 and is definitely another "material change".
>
This is a very material change and not for the better.
>
>
> 3. Are there parts of 2008-2 the community would want back in  
> without the
> original 3 year sunset clause of 2008-6?
>
Yes, but, I think there is a distinct lack of consensus around which  
parts.
I believe that is how we arrived at 2008-6 instead of 2008-2.

Owen