[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-156 Update 8.3 to allow inter-RIR transfers

[Mike Burns]

I would like to point out that some of the comments relating to 156 involve 
issues of "fairness" in terms of applying less stringent standards to the 
proposed transfers than applied to ARIN members, and others involve issues 
of perceived ARIN bullying from its position of strength on this issue.

Both issues would dissolve, as would so many others, with the adoption of my 
proposal 151 to treat legacy and non-legacy addresses fairly by removing the 
outdated and unnecessary needs requirement on IPv4 transfers.

Given the situation, we are virtually mandating transfers (of legacy space 
at least) of address space outside the RIR system entirely.
The resultant irrelevance of Whois data will drive the acceptance of private 
registries.

In this article, 
http://techliberation.com/2011/08/15/trading-ipv4-addresses-starts-making-internet-elders-nervous/ 
,Prof. Mueller relates a conversation with the broker who handled the 
Microsoft/Nortel IPv4 sale.  That broker mentions a point which is entirely 
relevant to my proposal, which is the fact that of all the 38 (!) IP blocks 
included in the sale, not a single one had correct Whois data.

As IPv6 remains stillborn, IPv4 address values will increase.
As the values increase there will be conflict over ownership rights.
Those conflicts will be settled in court eventually, and Whois will come to 
be publicly displayed as erroneous and irrelevant.
Owners will demand a more reliable registration system to ensure their 
rights are recognized, and network operators will feel more protected by a 
registry which backs their entries with chain-of-custody documents.

By maintaining a needs requirement for transfers, we are on the path to a 
dramatic change in Internet governance, which we can avoid by refusing to 
continue policies which work in restraint of the free trading of IPv4 
addresses.

I applaud Scott's efforts to make a bad situation a little better, but 
suggest that the problems he addresses in his rationale would be mooted by 
acceptance of Prop 151.

I guess this is a thread hijack, but there is still time for expressions of 
support for 151 as it has not been abandoned.

Regards,
Mike




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Scott Leibrand" <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
To: "Mike Burns" <mike at nationwideinc.com>
Cc: "ARIN" <info at arin.net>; <arin-ppml at arin.net>
Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 8:48 PM
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-156 Update 8.3 to allow inter-RIR 
transfers


On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> Support, but I would support more with a 12-month justification and it 
> would
> be better with no justification requirement at all.

Thanks.  I'd like to hear input from more folks on what this
requirement should look like.

> This change will allow some Asian companies to participate in legitimate
> transfers with Whois updates, who would otherwise have to take the risks 
> of
> an unbooked sale.
> Would this policy be consistent with the ideas about regional registries
> that was discussed on the list earlier in reference to ICP-2?

Yes, because we're transferring the addresses (under certain
conditions) to another RIR for them to administer in their region.

> Is this change in 8.3 an endrun around the concept of regionality?

I don't believe so.

-Scott


> ----- Original Message ----- From: "ARIN" <info at arin.net>
> To: <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2011 2:46 PM
> Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-156 Update 8.3 to allow inter-RIR transfers
>
>
>> ARIN-prop-156 Update 8.3 to allow inter-RIR transfers
>>
>> 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)
>>
>> ## * ##
>>
>> ARIN-prop-156 Update 8.3 to allow inter-RIR transfers
>>
>> Proposal Originator: Scott Leibrand
>>
>> Date: 23 August 2011
>>
>> Proposal type: Modify
>>
>> Policy term: Permanent
>>
>> Policy statement:
>>
>> 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients
>>
>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may
>> be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in whole or in
>> part, for transfer:
>>
>> + under RSA, to specified organizational recipient(s) within the ARIN
>> region that can demonstrate the need for such resources, in the exact
>> amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
>>
>> + to another RIR, for transfer to a specified recipient in that RIR's
>> service region who demonstrates plans to deploy the resources for the
>> justified purpose within 3 months, as long as the request meets the
>> policy requirements of both RIRs, and the recipient (and any
>> organizations to which they have transferred or reassigned space) can
>> show efficient utilization of all prior allocations, assignments, and
>> transfers according to the current policy requirements of both RIRs.
>>
>>
>> Rationale:
>>
>> A number of RIRs already allow IPv4 address transfers within their
>> service regions. Given that IPv4 address demand is concentrated in
>> certain rapidly growing regions, whereas IPv4 addresses that can be
>> made available to supply that demand are concentrated in regions with
>> more historical IPv4 deployment, it would be most efficient for
>> addresses to be transferred from regions with more supply to regions
>> with more demand. If this is not allowed, prices for IPv4 addresses
>> in high-demand regions will be higher, raising overall costs,
>> encouraging address holders to transfer addresses outside the RIR
>> system, and/or encouraging large corporations to acquire addresses in
>> regions with more supply and then use them in regions with more
>> demand. It would be better for the overall Internet industry to allow
>> inter-RIR transfers to organizations with demonstrated need for
>> addressing for immediate deployment needs.
>>
>> This policy text would be intended to replace draft policy 2011-1 ARIN
>> Inter-RIR Transfers.
>>
>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.
>