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

[Kevin Kargel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill Darte [mailto:BillD at cait.wustl.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 3:09 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel; William Herrin; Chris Grundemann
> Cc: arin ppml; Robert E. Seastrom
> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR Transfers -
> Shepherd's Inquiry
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Kevin Kargel
> > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:56 PM
> > To: 'William Herrin'; Chris Grundemann
> > Cc: arin ppml; Robert E. Seastrom
> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR
> > Transfers - Shepherd's Inquiry
> >
> > {evil top post}
> >
> > I *think* I agree with what Bill is saying.  ARIN should be
> > free to do inter-RIR transfers with caveats.  IMHO the
> > transfers should not be longer than /8 unless they complete a
> > /8 for the receiver, and there should be no transfers if ARIN
> > has a current or foreseeable need.
> 
> Kevin...and your belief that ARIN should keep all that space that could
> come available anytime in the future and forever (assuming the possibility
> of any future foreseeable need), even though the space may have been
> legacy and allocated wastefully (classfully) to those recipients before
> the world, commercial Internet emerged?  First come first served...but if
> those addresses 'come again' how is it reasonable that only ARIN should
> benefit from the emergence of a public good in the new reality of a global
> Internet and global need?
> 
> Curious only...as an individual member of the community.
> 
> bd 

My belief is that if ARIN holds authority for an ip block *and* if ARIN has a need for that IP block then ARIN should not relinquish it.  Why should ARIN relinquish a resource they have need for?  Is that simply enough said?

If ARIN currently holds authority for an IP block and ARIN has no need for it then ARIN should be able to (not be required to) transfer the IP block *IF* the IP block can be transferred responsibly to a party that can justify a current need for it as ARIN staff deems proper and according to established policy.  

I think this is a simple and straightforward approach that does take the worlds needs in to consideration after ARIN's needs are met.  From what I have seen the other RIR's are not going to place ARIN's needs above their own either.


> 
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net
> > [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
> > > On Behalf Of William Herrin
> > > Sent: Wednesday, June 22, 2011 2:03 PM
> > > To: Chris Grundemann
> > > Cc: arin ppml; Robert E. Seastrom
> > > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR
> > Transfers -
> > > Shepherd's Inquiry
> > >
> > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 1:55 PM, Chris Grundemann
> > > <cgrundemann at gmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 10:43, William Herrin
> > <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> > > >> I'd say that points 2 and 3 is what consensus looks like.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly.
> > >
> > > Hi Chris,
> > >
> > > Then what's your beef with what Marty said? I saw the part where he
> > > claimed the proposal on the table does not have consensus.
> > He's right.
> > > Did I miss some other part where he claimed there was no
> > consensus to
> > > pursue development of an acceptable inter-RIR transfer process?
> > >
> > >
> > > Even I want to see inter-RIR transfers. I just don't want
> > to see them
> > > directly or indirectly drain ARIN's remaining free pool. Vague
> > > statements on the principles of need don't get that job
> > done. Neither
> > > do proposals containing obvious poison pills for APNIC.
> > >
> > > And frankly I'm very against creating global policy that
> > restricts RIR
> > > choices in a sidewise manner. This is a little like the federal law
> > > the revokes highway funds for any state that doesn't set
> > the drinking
> > > age at 21. What happens five years from now when *we* see
> > the wisdom
> > > of stepping away from what by then could be an expensive nuisance
> > > justification process for IPv4 transfers?
> > >
> > > Regardless, there is most emphatically no consensus that
> > 2011-1 should
> > > be the law of the land and it would be inappropriate to
> > move it last
> > > call at this time.
> > >
> > > Regards,
> > > Bill Herrin
> > >
> > >
> > > --
> > > William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com
> > bill at herrin.us
> > > 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
> > > Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > 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.
> >