[arin-ppml] Draft Policy 2011-1 - Inter-RIR Transfers -Shepherd's Inquiry
scottleibrand at gmail.com
Tue Jun 21 17:35:24 EDT 2011
There is no need for a global (or globally coordinated) policy to
enable inter-RIR transfers. APNIC already allows them, so if we pass
a local policy that allows for outbound transfers to APNIC, staff can
start processing such transfer requests as soon as they implement the
This policy, as written, would not yet allow that, due to the
requirement for needs-based transfer policies in both RIRs.
On Jun 21, 2011, at 2:21 PM, Mike Burns <mike at nationwideinc.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
More information about the ARIN-PPML