[arin-ppml] 2009-1 comment

[Kevin Kargel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: John Curran [mailto:jcurran at istaff.org]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 27, 2009 6:31 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel
> Cc: arin ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2009-1 comment
>
> On May 27, 2009, at 5:57 PM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> >
> > ...
> > I think what Paul was saying is that 2008-6 is a done deal, and
> > without a
> > new policy to supercede it then community consensus et.al. no longer
> > applies.  It is what it is.
>
> I don't know if that's how I'd phrase it, but I'll leave it to Paul to
> say what he means one way or the other.
>
> I will note that 2008-6 has been adopted, and to the extent that one
> doesn't want an open transfer policy, it's incumbent on the community
> to suggest new policy proposals to the contrary.
>
> The question that's presently being discussed is whether people prefer
> the open transfer policy adopted as-is, or as-revised by 2009-1. The AC
> revised 2009-1 and sent it to the ARIN Board for adoption, so feedback
> on amending the existing open transfer policy in this manner would be
> quite useful.
>
> /John
>
> John Curran
> Acting President and CEO
> ARIN
>
I would suggest the following codicils be added to make the transfer policy 
palatable..

A) Limit transfers from or to any party to no more than two in a one year
period, or the rate limit in place for general transfers, whichever is less.

B) Require an RSA or LRSA be in place and active for all blocks currently 
allocated to the receiving org and the releasing org. Require RSA for 
transferred space.

C) Require reachability of all POC contacts associated with existing blocks
that were /24 or larger for BOTH the "buyer" and the "seller".  Verify
email, telephone and mailing addresses.

D) Releasing party is a member in good standing with ARIN.  All dues and
fees are paid.  Accepting party either has or commits to obtain and maintain

membership in good standing with ARIN.

E) Space to be transferred to be released to ARIN and the IP space be placed

in a holding pool (quarantine?) for 14 days.  Effect transfer only if there 
are no general requests that would need to draw from that space in the
holding pool in order to be fulfilled.  When needed to satisfy general
requests then space in the holding pool should be allocated in a first-in
first-out date order. General allocations from the holding pool are not 
subject to the 14 day quarantine.  Both releasing and receiving party POCs
to 
be notified of a general allocation of the resource in question.

The last amendment (E) is especially important to insure fair competition
for 
dwindling resources by the community.  What I tried to do with this was to
say 
that general requests take priority over directed transfers.  This way 
everyone will have a chance to compete for the resources.  With this added I

would tend to support 2009-1 .

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 3224 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20090528/7cd49e94/attachment.bin>