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

Mike Burns mike at nationwideinc.com
Tue Jun 21 11:14:14 EDT 2011

Hello Bill,

Opposed because it prevents the regions with the largest number of allocations from transferring to the region with the highest demand due to language about needs-based policies.
Stewards of these  resources should seek cooperation between regions and not seek to exacerbate nuances of difference about views of stewardship at the cost of ostracizing those who think differently.
Is it really necessary to poke APNIC in the eye just because their stewards consider these needs policies a risk to Whois accuracy?
Even if we believe their conclusion is wrong, is it worth the discord engendered by the proposed language?
Can't we operate on the basis that each registry community is acting as honest stewards and not erect barriers when we disagree?

I mean, we still have to agree to any transfers. Leaving us free to make decisions based on individual circumstances, rather than explicitly excluding all Asian transfers.

All we are doing is driving such transfers underground.

(Since Bill is looking for concise feedback and not a rehash of prior discussions, please consider my questions rhetorical.)

Maybe I would change the language from "needs-based policies on behalf of entities" to "needs-based policies applying to entities" because I think it is more accurate.

Mike Burns

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Bill Darte 
  To: arin ppml 
  Cc: Robert E. Seastrom 
  Sent: Tuesday, June 21, 2011 10:30 AM
  Subject: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR Transfers - Shepherd'sInquiry


  Please provide you immediate, concise feeback which states your position for or against the DP as changed from its earlier version and any reasoning you may wish to provide.

  I am proposing that the original Draft Policy 2011-1: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy ....

  Be renamed.... Draft Policy 2011-1: Inter-RIR Transfers...

  and that the DP text be modified to the following to accommodate the many insights and concerns shared with me and the AC by members of the community and the AC itself.

  "Address resources may be transferred.... in or out of the ARIN region to those who demonstrate need and plan to deploy them for a networking purpose within 3 months. Such transfers will take place between RIRs who share compatible, needs-based policies on behalf of entities agreeing to the transfer and which otherwise meet both RIR's policies. Transferred resources will become part of the resource holdings of the recipient RIR unless otherwise agreed by both RIRs."

  Reasoning....It is explicit about..

  in or out of region,
  that transfers are between RIRs that support needs-based policies, 
  that RIRs have to agree, 
  that parties meet all of both RIR policies 
  that it is needs based, and the need is for a networking purpose, 
  that the receiving RIR is entitled to the addresses

  I think all these details were raised as objections at one time or another...so it seems best to waste a few more words to be explicit.

  It is not explicit about...
  block sizes
  utilization of prior allocations, assignments or transfers
  RFC 2050
  subsequent transfers

  Nor should it be, IMO

  Thank you for your continuing involvement in the ARIN Policy Development Process.


  Bill Darte
  Primary Shepherd DP 2011-1


  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:
  Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110621/6005d0ea/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list