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

[Mike Burns]

>
> First, the current proposals are not no-ops. They happen to exclude
> APNIC unless APNIC happens to change their policy. I see this as
> the right thing to do. I will strenuously oppose any policy that favors 
> the
> elimination of needs basis and the abandonment of our stewardship in
> that direction.
>
> Owen
>

Owen,

You know there are Asian companies with justifiable need who will be 
prevented from accessing the mother lode of available address space in ARIN 
simply because you believe that your notion of stewardship is superior to 
the APNIC community's.

Basically you are holding those companies' justifiable need hostage to the 
fears you have about market speculators and the like.

Nevermind that there is no evidence of that speculation happening and 
nevermind that APNIC has a real, honest need, and nevermind that ARIN has 
the benefit of huge legacy allocations.
And nevermind that the stewards at APNIC debated and decided that their 
primary stewardship of Whois demanded changes to their needs policies for 
transfers.

The effect of your strenous opposition will be the prevention of unused 
addresses being put to use by those with a justifiable need, just so you can 
prevent anybody without a justifiable need from possibly getting space.

So you are standing between those with a need and those with unused space 
and preventing the transfer. Now that's stewardship.
I mean, wouldn't you even consider dropping the needs language from the 
proposal and relying on ARIN staff to discern nefarious practices and not 
agree to the transfer?
Do you really think there are wild horses worth of speculators just waiting 
for the door to open a crack, then rush in to drain all available space 
before the ARIN staff knew what was happening?
I really think that's a stretch. Yet you are using that fear to effectively 
block all transfers to APNIC.

And to say the current proposals "happen to exclude" APNIC is disingenous. 
The language we are debating could just as easily say "No APNIC members need 
apply" and have the same effect.

And as usual, you ignore the threat to the registration function of standing 
between willing buyers and willing sellers, with willing network operators 
ready to carry the traffic waiting in the wings.

I know you will point the finger at the APNIC stewards and insist they 
revert to a needs test, but you are effectively using the justifiable but 
unmet need of the APNIC members as blackmail to force them to effect that 
change.

Regards,
Mike