[arin-ppml] Conditions on transfers (Was: Curious about consensus)

Mon Apr 25 18:53:55 EDT 2011

Ted,

I think you're misreading the Board on this one.  I think they learned a
hard lesson about invoking the emergency PDP, and are very reluctant to take
the lead on policy at this point.  I also have seen no evidence of any Board
members desiring to block community-supported policy.

It sounds like you also may be misreading the community consensus around
transfers.  For example, at the just-completed PPM in San Juan, there was a
poll on the subject of support for "in principle, an interregional transfer
policy", where "41 were in favor and one against." (
https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVII/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_6
)

OTOH, it is also clear that the ARIN community supports restrictions on
transfers, particularly around maintaining a needs basis.  So if you have
any specific suggestions for how NRPM 8.3 could be improved, I would
encourage you to propose text here on PPML, and if a suggestion has support,
submit it as a policy proposal.  IMO one good source of ideas would be the
original 2008-2 transfer policy.

In addition, we had some good discussion in San Juan about whether certain
restrictions in 8.3 were proving unnecessary and might even be harmful.  As
a result of that discussion, I suspect you will see some policy proposals to
relax certain restrictions, such as moving from a 12-month need
justification period to 24 months, and to relax the "as a single aggregate"
restriction.  If anyone has thoughts on either of those changes, I'd like to
hear them.

-Scott

On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <tedm at ipinc.net> wrote:

> OK so with all that said and everyone's memory refreshed,
>
> where do we go now?
>
> Obviously even if community consensus was to eliminate the transfer
> section of the NRPM, we would not be able to do it - the Board would
> force another policy.  We as a community need to accept that when it
> comes to this issue we are in a dictatorship.
>
> So how do we mitigate the worst of the abuses?  What can we get
> through that the Board isn't going to block?
>
> I just wish the Board and their representatives would stop claiming
> they had community support for transfers - after all we aren't stupid.
> They would serve the community much more by telling us precisely what
> they will and won't allow to happen in this area.
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> On 4/25/2011 11:31 AM, Bill Darte wrote:
>
>> And I will remind you that 2008-6 which passed was intended by the
>> author (me) and community to be a 'wait until runout' or very near that
>> their by emergency powers, for implementation which would have allowed
>> the AC and community to work on crafting more explicit improvements to
>> it. And, this 2008-6 was to be a stop-gap measure and sunsetted. (full
>> text AND rationale below).
>>
>> The Board decided to use their emergency powers immediately to put
>> something more to their liking in place immediately.
>>
>> And note that and RSA was required to play....
>>
>>
>>
>> Draft Policy 2008-6
>> Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses
>>
>> Author: Bill Darte
>>
>> Date: 24 January 2009
>>
>> Policy statement:
>>
>> 8.4 Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses
>>
>> For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, authorized resource
>> holders served by ARIN may designate a recipient for number resources
>> they
>> release to ARIN.
>>
>> Number resources may only be received under RSA in the exact amount
>> which can be justified under ARIN resource-allocation policies.
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> In order for ARIN to fulfill its mission and to facilitate a continuing
>> supply of IPv4 address resources to its service community when ARIN
>> resources are no longer adequate, and to preserve the integrity of
>> documentation and ARIN services for those resources, this policy may be
>> implemented. Its intent is to preserve the current tradition of
>> need-based allocation/assignments for those still needing IPv4 resources
>> during a transition period as the industry adopts IPv6. This policy is
>> not intended to create a 'market' for such transfers and does not
>> introduce or condone the monetization of address resources or a view of
>> addresses as property. It does recognize that organizations making
>> available unused or no longer needed address resources may incur certain
>> costs that might be compensated by those acquiring the resources. This
>> policy is intended to be transient and light-weight and does not
>> encourage a sustained or continuing role for IPv4, but rather helps to
>> mitigate a transitional crisis that may emerge while the industry adopts
>> IPv6 in accordance with the recommendation of ARIN's Board of Trustees.
>>
>> Timetable for implementation:
>>
>> This policy, once ratified by the ARIN Board of Trustees, would be
>> implemented when either the free-pool of IANA addresses is exhausted or
>> IPv4 address resources in the ARIN Region reach a threshold of scarcity
>> recognized by the ARIN Board of Trustees as requiring this policy
>> implementation.
>>
>>  -----Original Message-----
>>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
>>> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell
>>> Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:48 PM
>>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Curious about consensus
>>>
>>> In a message written on Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:33:22AM
>>> -0700, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>>>
>>>> Perhaps this is why the Board should think harder about using the
>>>> Emergency PDP and trying to draft policy on their own.  If
>>>>
>>> you recall,
>>>
>>>> when the Board took the action that created 2009-1 we were
>>>>
>>> less than
>>>
>>>> two months from the community considering 2008-2 at a
>>>>
>>> meeting where it
>>>
>>>> likely would have passed.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Scott Liebrand reminded me of a part of history had I wanted
>>> to forget.  At the fall 2008 meeting 2008-2 was abandoned in
>>> favor of the AC originated, and even more ill conceived
>>> 2008-6 policy.  That was the one that was coming up at the
>>> 2009 spring meeting.
>>>
>>>  In this case I don't hold the AC much responsible though, the Board
>>>> put them between a rock and a hard place basically telling them to
>>>> either rubber stamp it, or if they took their time with it
>>>>
>>> the Board
>>>
>>>> would just continue to go around them in the Emergency PDP.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Which means I must retract this statement.  The AC's choice
>>> to go from 2008-2 (which, admittedly needed work) to the
>>> remarkably requirement-free policy 2008-6 likely helped push
>>> the Board to take action under the Emergency PDP.  Still, I
>>> think the Board could have and should have drawn more
>>> guidence from 2008-2.
>>>
>>> My point though still stands, these things were discussed in
>>> great detail by the AC over a period of several years, and at
>>> the end of the day the BoT and AC ended up in this mess where
>>> they threw the baby out with the bath water.  I think
>>> everyone involved should be ashamed.
>>>
>>> --
>>>        Leo Bicknell - bicknell at ufp.org - CCIE 3440
>>>         PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
>>>
>>>  _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110425/3bd90294/attachment.htm>