[arin-ppml] Curious about consensus
tedm at ipinc.net
Mon Apr 25 18:21:47 EDT 2011
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.
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
> release to ARIN.
> Number resources may only be received under RSA in the exact amount
> which can be justified under ARIN resource-allocation policies.
> 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
>> -----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/
> 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