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

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Mar 24, 2009 at 1:00 PM, Member Services <info at arin.net> wrote:
> Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy is available below and at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2009_1.html

First off, here's a diff so you can see how 2009-1 would impact
section 8 in the NRPM:

http://bill.herrin.us/network/diff-2009-01.html

Some comments:

1. I adamantly OPPOSE adoption of this policy. There is no emergency
here and the use of the emergency policy process is wrongheaded and
wholly inappropriate. Should the board desire the adoption of this
policy text, it should offer it through the normal process where its
errors can be identified and corrected.

2. The changed text in 8.2 implies that a transfer of resources will
not be permitted except as a result of a merger or acquisition. Does
this rule out any kind of transfer that was previously permitted? If
so, what?

3. The original use of the word "effecting" was correct. The
instrument(s) effecting the transfer of assets. You don't affect a
change, you effect a change. The use of the word "affecting" in 2009-1
is incorrect.

Ref: http://www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/affect.html
Ref: http://grammar.quickanddirtytips.com/affect-versus-effect.aspx

4. 2008-06 intentionally sunsetted section 8.4 three years after
adoption. This was no accident: the community has long been suspicious
of processes that effectively permit the sale of IP addresses from one
party to another. We're willing to give it a chance, but if we don't
like what we see, we don't want to have to fight again to take the
policy back out... especially with the board hinting it might try
sketchy procedural maneuvers in order to overrule such an effort.

5. From the flow of the text in 8.2 and 2009-1's 8.3, it isn't clear
whether the 8.3 is intended to clarify 8.2 or be separate from it. I
suggest retitling the sections "8.2 Transfers due to mergers and
acquisitions" and "8.3 Other transfers"

6. 2008-6 applied only to IPv4 addresses. 2009-1 applies to all number
resources. I don't personally care either way, but the consensus was
clearly for a policy that was limited in scope.

7. Although it didn't explicitly make it in to 2008-6's final text,
there was an implication that specific assignments transferred in this
manner should not be chopped up. You could release a particular
assignment, or not. Any chopping would be done at ARIN's discretion.

2009-1 explicitly states the opposite. It could reasonably be read to
permit a /32 to be released from a /16 even though current ARIN policy
does not permit new direct assignments of IPv4 /32's. 2009-1's
explicit limitation is whether the recipient can justify the address
count, not whether the assignment meets current policy overall.


For reason #1 above, I adamantly OPPOSE adoption of this policy.
Comments #2-#7 illustrate the need for this policy proposal to get the
same full treatment as every other policy proposal.

Regards,
Bill Herrin




-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004