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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jun 22, 2011, at 2:48 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

>> 
>> 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.
> 
Yes. Regrettably, APNIC's policy decisions will preclude some of their organizations from being able to acquire addresses from the ARIN region if we pass 2011-1. Hopefully they will choose to act in their region to correct this imbalance of policy if they feel participating in such transfers is of benefit to their community.

> Basically you are holding those companies' justifiable need hostage to the fears you have about market speculators and the like.
> 
Not how I would characterize it, but, I understand your perspective.

> 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.
> 

Seriously? You really think the fact that it hasn't been proven yet in any way provides a compelling case that it won't? ROFL.
I'm well aware of the fact that you agree with them. I'm well aware of your preference to dispense with needs-basis altogether. I'm well aware of the fact that you think speculators and the offering of IP addresses to the highest bidder without concern for the consequences is a good idea. On each and every one of these points, we have well established different opinions.

> 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.

I'm sure the addresses will get used by people with justifiable need. If it isn't those people in Asia of whom you speak, it will be others.


> 
> So you are standing between those with a need and those with unused space and preventing the transfer. Now that's stewardship.

I am standing between those with a policy that precludes preservation of needs basis and a pool of available addresses which can be held for those who definitely have need. Yes, there are people in Asia who will suffer under the APNIC policy and that is regrettable. However, the policy problems in APNIC are an issue for the APNIC community (in which I do participate). Even if APNIC wants to preserve their current lack of needs basis, I would consider it sufficient if they adopted a policy that stated addresses transferred in from other regions would remain subject to needs-basis for subsequent transfer, or, would be returned to the original region when no longer in use by the original transferee.

It is not my goal to change APNIC policy, preclude their ability to set their own policies, or, in any way punish APNIC for the policies they have set. However, it is my goal to prevent the flow of addresses from a needs-based policy environment to the IP equivalent of the wild west.

> 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?

No, I would not.

> 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.

I am not using fear at all. You insist on calling it fear. In my opinion, it is the only responsible policy. In my opinion, the good of the community requires a preservation of needs-basis in policy with regards to who is eligible to receive addresses. This isn't about fear, it's about doing the correct thing in the best interests of the community. In the San Juan meeting, the community expressed overwhelming consensus for the idea that needs-basis should be preserved in this policy. Even if I didn't agree with them, I would still feel obliged to follow that mandate.

> 
> 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.
> 

APNIC made an unfortunate policy choice that goes against the principles preserved by 80% of the RIRs. I really don't think it is fair to criticize ARIN or the ARIN community for remaining aligned with the other 60% of RIRs instead of choosing to support a single RIR that has abandoned a fundamental principle of the RIR system.

> 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 do not ignore it, I simply do not believe it represents the level of threat you claim or that addresses transferred outside of policy will retain anywhere near the usefulness that you claim. As I result, I believe that problem will be limited in scope. In fact, it is you who are motivated by fear. Fear of off-the-books transfers. I don't think these represent a significant threat and so that fear does not motivate me at this time.

> 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.
> 

I do not care whether APNIC reverts to a needs-basis test or not. However, if they want resources from the ARIN region, I see no reason we should transfer those resources into their region when we know such a test does not exist.

Owen