[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2010-10 (Global Proposal): Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post Exhaustion - Last Call (text revised)

[Chris Grundemann]

On Fri, Nov 5, 2010 at 16:54, Matthew Petach <mpetach at netflight.com> wrote:
> I actually just have one question that's really about the subject
> matter at hand; apologies in advance for drifting off topic back
> to the original post.  :(
>
> On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 9:40 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> ...
>> 6. No Transfer Rights
>> Address space assigned from the Reclamation Pool may be transferred if
>> there is either an ICANN Board ratified global policy or globally
>> coordinated RIR policy specifically written to deal with transfers
>> whether inter-RIR or from one entity to another. Transfers must meet the
>> requirements of such a policy. In the absence of such a policy, no
>> transfers of any kind related to address space allocated or assigned
>> from the reclamation pool is allowed.
>
> ARIN has a specified transfer listing service, and currently allows
> for transfers within its region.  Is there a particular reason we need to
> split address space into two categories, that which can be transferred
> and that which cannot?  Why does the date on which address space
> is allocated or assigned determine whether or not the space can ever
> be transferred, in perpetuity?
>
> We already have mechanisms in place to prevent abuse within the
> transfer policy; I see no reason to artificially create two different
> categories of address space like this.

We (in the ARIN region) do have mechanisms in place. This may not be
true in all regions. If it is true today, it may not remain true in
the future. If one RIR (or worse several) fails to have such
mechanisms in place (or removes them after the fact), that region
could become something of a black hole for IPv4 space returned to the
IANA.

If we allow this possibility, then it is very unlikely that the other
regions (including ARIN) would ever return any space (for fear that it
will be sucked away), thus negating the purpose of this policy. Hence
the restriction - to create a level playing field in order to
facilitate returns to the IANA whenever possible.

> I would support this policy, with the adjustment of section 6 to allow
> for RIR-based transfer policies, like the one currently present in the
> ARIN region; trying to develop a coordinated transfer policy across
> all regions, all RIRs I consider to be an unnecessary burden on
> this proposal.

There is currently a proposal in the ARIN region for a globally
coordinated transfer policy (pp119) which is extremely light-weight.
The need for two policies is driven by the distinction between a
global policy (like 2010-10) and a globally coordinated policy (like
pp119). Global policy is basically instructions to IANA from the
communities of all five RIRs. Globally coordinated policy, on the
other hand, is simply agreement between the five communities (no need
to instruct IANA).

> And now, you may return to your current rant-filled thread.  ^_^;

Thanks for the interruption. :)
~Chris

>
> Matt
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>


-- 
@ChrisGrundemann
weblog.chrisgrundemann.com
www.burningwiththebush.com
www.coisoc.org