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

[David Farmer]

On 26 Mar 2009 Bill Woodcock wrote:

>       On Thu, 26 Mar 2009, David Farmer wrote:
>     > 2. Other comments about the removal of the 3 year sunset
>     clause...
> 
> Every single sentence in the NRPM could have a sunset clause, doubling
> the size of the document and requiring that every part of it be
> constantly maintained.  Since the public _already has_ the capability
> to roll back any part of the NRPM at any time, or to override any
> previously-enacted sunset clause at any time, sunset clauses are
> no-ops.  

I completely agree with you on the content of your point, and personally I 
don't have a problem the end result.  But, I don't so much agree with how we 
got to the resolution of the point, process does matter some time.

>     > 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. 
> 
> 8.1, paragraph 2, among others.
> 
> ARIN does not give resources to organizations that do not sign an RSA.
>  That doesn't need to be restated in every paragraph.
> 
>     > 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."
> 
> Correct.

Thank you and as I said I just wanted a clearification; 
 
>     > 2. Within 2008-6 the title of section 8.4 was "Emergency
>     > Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses".  2009-1 doesn't include any
>     > language to limit this to IPv4 resources only.
> 
> Is there a perceived problem there?  Is there a perceived need to
> transfer IPv6 addresses or ASNs?  If so, is that more problematic than
> IPv4 addresses?

Wait a minute here, I've been mostly with you up to this point!  

But, I'll quote John Curran here "the material change made to the transfer 
policy by the ARIN Board is removal of the 3 year sunset clause."

Even if I agreed with you about this point, and I don't, this is a very material 
change too.  Both 2008-2 and 2008-6 very explicitly limited transfers to IPv4.  
I haven't heard anyone talking about transfuers for IPv6 and ASNs.  This is a 
way more material than the 3 year sunset clause.

>     > If the Board intended this to include IPv6 and ANS resources, 
>     > then why keep the Mergers and Acquisitions section?
> 
> That was indeed the subject of no little discussion, as I imagine
> you'll find when you read the meeting minutes.

I was trying to argue that not limiting to IPv4 was an editing mistake, by 
pointing out that the Mergers and Acquisitions section was retained.  I'm 
speechless, that you are implying that it was intentional to remove the 
limitation to IPv4 and include IPv6 and ASNs.

I believe that the majority of the community sees allowing the transfer of IPv4 
resources as the least-worst option as a result of IPv4 exhaustion. And 
personally, I'm willing to buy an emergency for IPv4, others aren't.  But, I also 
believe that a majority of the community would prefer a different option than 
transfers for IPv4 if there were a realistic one out there.  But transfers for 
IPv6 and ASNs, especially after we have done 4-byte ASNs, just isn't 
necessary, and doesn't meet any definition of the word emergency I know of.   

>                                 -Bill


=======================================================
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
=======================================================