[arin-ppml] Proposition 153 -- Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM8.3

[Mike Burns]

> On 6/18/2011 4:55 PM, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> Under current staff interpretation, the clause is bound to the 
>> justification rather than
>> the resources transferred. The clear and obvious intent of the language 
>> is that it
>> be bound to the resources transferred and not the justification. As such, 
>> this proposal
>> seeks to achieve that end.
>
> Opposed. Just requires lots of serial transfers for no particularly good 
> reason, impedes the market for those with legitimate need.
>
>> Yes, this is in direct opposition to proposal 144 which seeks to remove 
>> the single
>> aggregate clause altogether.
>
> And I'm opposed to 153 no matter how 144 goes.
>
> Matthew Kaufman

I am also opposed to 153.
Although I agree that this was the clear intention of the transfer policy, 
the fact that ARIN staff chose a different interpretation is evidence that 
the policy is too restrictive.

When faced with a real-world legacy transfer which appeared to be on the way 
to the approval of the bankruptcy judge, ARIN was unable to change the 
transaction enough to match policy, and so chose to change policy 
interpretation to match the transaction.

The lesson to be learned from this is that by continuing to have a transfer 
policy which places ARIN in the position of having to approve or disapprove 
a transaction based on things which do not concern the buyer or the seller, 
we run the risk that the buyer and seller will sidestep the process and 
prosecute the deal without notifying ARIN.

I am opposed to any policy which risks off-the-books transactions due to 
transactional impediments.

We all understand the motive of aggregation, which fuels the 
single-aggregate restriction.
But we have to balance that against our primary responsibility (per RFC2050) 
to maintain an accurate Whois registry.

Regards,

Mike Burns