[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR Transfers -Shepherd's Inquiry

[Mike Burns]

When the language says both RIRs have to agree to the transfer, what does 
that actually mean?
That the AC agrees, or that there is a vote at a policy meeting, or a count 
of approvals on a mailing list?
Or that ARIN staff agrees?

Because if it's the latter, that it becomes a staff decision like any other 
transfer, why can't we just leave it to ARIN staff and see what happens, and 
if we don't like it we can voice our concerns to the ARIN staff later. 
Surely it is quicker to do this than to create a whole global policy.

I think the proposal is more likely to pass globally if it is not larded 
with the particular concerns of each registry.
We should leave the language requiring both RIRs to agree, that gives us 
flexibility in observing some transactions and then if we decide as a 
community that we don't like the direction they are headed in we can let the 
ARIN staff know that the community does not wish for transfers to be 
approved if they meet this or that contingency.

Thus if we have evidence of speculation, market manipulation, dangerous 
levels of addresses fleeing our region, we can use the "RIRs must agree" 
language to restrict those transfers.

But we don't lose this opportunity to create a wider market for the transfer 
of addresses from those who want to sell them to those who need them.

Consider that we are essentially blocking transfers to APNIC members who 
have a real and justifiable need for addresses just so we can be sure 
somebody doesn't sneak in and use their open transfer policy to act 
nefariously.  This is the region with the highest demand, and the insistence 
on maintaining our particular interpretation of stewardship has the result 
of shutting off transfers from the region with highest supply to all APNIC 
members, whether they can demonstrate need or not.

We could even drop the needs language, pass the policy, but let ARIN staff 
know the community does not want any transfers approved currently. Then we 
could open the door in the future to such transfers just by letting ARIN 
staff know that the community has revised its decision. This way we don't 
lose progress on this global policy.

Or we could let ARIN staff know the community currently wants to restrict 
transfers to those with justifiable need, and let ARIN staff review any 
needs justification which is voluntarily submitted with the transfer 
application. At least this way we don't throw the baby out with the bath 
water.

I would support the policy if all language related to needs is eliminated, 
but the requirement of both RIRs to agree is maintained.

Regards,
Mike
issues.