[arin-ppml] Policy Proposal 119: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy

[Ted Mittelstaedt]

On 10/11/2010 10:20 AM, ARIN wrote:
> ARIN received the following policy proposal and is posting it to the
> Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in accordance with the Policy
> Development Process.
>
> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) will review the proposal at their next
> regularly scheduled meeting (if the period before the next regularly
> scheduled meeting is less than 10 days, then the period may be extended
> to the subsequent regularly scheduled meeting). The AC will decide how
> to utilize the proposal and announce the decision to the PPML.
>
> The AC invites everyone to comment on the proposal on the PPML,
> particularly their support or non-support and the reasoning
> behind their opinion. Such participation contributes to a thorough
> vetting and provides important guidance to the AC in their deliberations.
>
> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Mailing list subscription information can be found
> at: https://www.arin.net/mailing_lists/
>
> Regards,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
> ## * ##
>
>
> Policy Proposal 119: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy
>
> Proposal Originator: Chris Grundemann, Martin Hannigan, Jason Schiller
>
> Proposal Version: 1.0
>
> Date: 11 October 2010
>
> Proposal type: new
>
> Policy term: permanent
>
> Policy statement: Any RIR's member may transfer IPv4 addresses to the
> member of another RIR as long as the two RIRs agree and exercise
> Internet stewardship and the values expressed in RFC2050.
>
> Rationale: Since individual RIRs now allow transfers, it makes sense to
> be able to transfer between regions as well.
>
> Timetable for implementation: upon ratification of all five RIRs
>
> Timetable for de-implementation: upon change to this policy text in any RIR
>
>

I disagree with the specific implementation but agree with the general
thrust of it.  I would prefer that any globally coordinated transfer
policy such as this would do the following:

1) explicitly set a minimum size of the block.  RFC's can be superseded.
And we do not want a lot of bifurcation of the ownership of the blocks.
/9's. /10's, I can see.  But as you get smaller and smaller the reasons
for allowing this rapidly get fuzzier and fuzzier.

2) Mandate that the transfer is RIR-to-RIR.  The correct verbage would 
be something along the lines of:

Any RIR's member may request their RIR to permit an IPv4 address 
transfer of their IPv4 to another RIR that is earmarked for assignment 
to a member of that RIR.

3) I also want to see an expiration if the transfer fails.  The verbage
would be something like:

In the event that the directed assignment fails due to the receiving
RIR rejecting the assignment, the earmark will expire in 6 months and 
the addresses will revert to the original RIR

Ted