[arin-ppml] ARIN-prop-156 Update 8.3 to allow inter-RIR transfers
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Tue Aug 23 20:30:09 EDT 2011
On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 4:21 PM, Randy Whitney
<randy.whitney at verizon.com> wrote:
> Hi William,
> In general, if this proposal remains unaltered than I remain opposed to
> the proposal. Specific points inline. I will not further the debate
> after this.
I just want to point out that at the moment, we are in a state of
complete autarky: no transfers between RIR regions are allowed (at
least within the RIR system). The current wording of draft policy
ARIN-2011-1 would allow transfers only to regions whose transfer
policies are needs-based and compatible with ours, which at the moment
would exclude APNIC, where the biggest demand is. This proposal would
at least allow transfers to any region willing to accept them, which
is more liberal than any other policy proposal I've seen so far.
So if you (and anyone else) dislike this proposal because it doesn't
go far enough, I would encourage you to suggest specific changes to
improve it, and/or to make an alternative proposal that you feel would
be better (and preferably that also has a chance of gaining
consensus). But remember that an all-or-nothing stance quite often
gets you nothing. That's why I'm taking an incremental approach here:
to help move us toward consensus on policy that is better than what we
> On 8/23/2011 5:38 PM, William Herrin wrote:
>> On Tue, Aug 23, 2011 at 5:25 PM, Paul Wilson<pwilson at apnic.net> wrote:
>>> Is it proposed that ARIN staff would conduct a full
>>> need-based assessment of the each recipient, even
>>> in another region, including examination of all prior
>> Hi Paul,
>> If that's what ARIN region policies call for with address transfers.
>> Why would we allow other regions to port out our scarce addresses
>> using a less stringent standard than we apply to ourselves?
>>> Has there been any consideration of the cost
>>> and practicality of this approach?
>>> Is it possible that a recipient would be asked to
>>> pay ARIN to cover the cost of this service?
>> I should hope so, but fees aren't determined by the policy community.
>>> Would a registration services agreement be required with ARIN?
>> I would expect so, although it would become moot once the transfer was
>> Bill Herrin
> Since you chose to _also_ include your response to Paul in your
> follow-up to my objection. This is perfect case-in-point: the standard
> protectionist stance emphasizing that you personally do not trust other
> RIRs to apply a fair determination of need to the transferred IP space.
> Certainly not in the spirit of cooperation with other RIRs for the
> greater good in sharing of sparse resources. But this is, of course,
> just my opinion.
FWIW, I personally don't support protectionism of any kind. But to
extend the analogy, in this case I'm trying to pass policy analogous
to a trade agreement, and AFAICT the best way to do that is to
directly address some of the fears and concerns people have expressed
by dealing with them directly in ARIN policy. Even the most liberal
"free trade" agreements usually end up with protections to address
various groups' concerns, so I'm not surprised that we have to do the
same thing to get consensus around inter-RIR transfer policy.
More information about the ARIN-PPML