[arin-ppml] 2009-1 comment
owen at delong.com
Thu May 28 14:10:32 EDT 2009
> I would suggest the following codicils be added to make the transfer
> A) Limit transfers from or to any party to no more than two in a one
> period, or the rate limit in place for general transfers, whichever
> is less.
This would require new policy, which, you could propose by submitting
a policy template available from the ARIN web site. If you need help
with this process, let me know off list and I will be happy to help you.
> B) Require an RSA or LRSA be in place and active for all blocks
> allocated to the receiving org and the releasing org. Require RSA for
> transferred space.
The existing policy requires that the holder of the block prior to
have the block being transfered covered under RSA or LRSA. Further,
an RSA is required of the receiving organization. The difference in what
you propose would be the additional requirement for ALL blocks held
by both organizations to be covered by (L)RSA, which, again, would
require additional policy.
> C) Require reachability of all POC contacts associated with existing
> that were /24 or larger for BOTH the "buyer" and the "seller". Verify
> email, telephone and mailing addresses.
This, too, would require policy. I am not sure what it would really
beyond the intent of the WHOIS policy that was recently in last call.
> D) Releasing party is a member in good standing with ARIN. All dues
> fees are paid. Accepting party either has or commits to obtain and
> membership in good standing with ARIN.
This makes little sense. Most end user organizations that have IP
ARIN are not currently members, and, there is no requirement for them
members if they get space from ARIN. Why should they be required to be
members in order to receive or give space in a transfer?
> 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-out date order. General allocations from the holding pool are
> subject to the 14 day quarantine. Both releasing and receiving
> party POCs
> be notified of a general allocation of the resource in question.
There is no way ARIN could implement this without new policy to support
it. I strongly encourage you to submit this as a policy proposal if
it is needed.
> The last amendment (E) is especially important to insure fair
> dwindling resources by the community. What I tried to do with this
> was to
> 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 .
Kevin, I am not sure you fully understand what, exactly, 2009-1 does.
The policy proposal 2008-6 has been ratified by the board and will
be implemented on June 1, 2009. Either as originally written with the
clarified interpretation stated by the board, or, as modified by 2009-1
as updated by the Advisory Council at the San Antonio meeting.
The question on the table with respect to transfer policy at this point
is whether you prefer the 2009-1 modifications and clarifications to
the process over the boards interpretation of 2008-6 or not. Frankly,
other than the fact that 2009-1 removes the sunset clause and
2008-6 as interpreted by the board does not, I think the primary
difference is clarity and explicit statement (2009-1) vs.
Before you make too many assumptions about my opinion
on the above subject, however, I suggest you review the minutes
from the AC Meeting in San Antonio, which should be published
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML