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

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Wed Jun 22 11:42:16 EDT 2011

As much as I support inter-RIR transfers, and agree with Chris that we
had strong support for this at San Juan, I think Marty is right that
opinion on PPML is much more divided. I personally think that is
because of the moderating and pragmaticizing influence of in-person
discussion, not because overall sentiment has changed. But regardless,
I won't oppose sending it for another round of discussion in Philly.

After Thursday, I also plan to float some other ideas (which we've
discussed here on the AC list) on PPML for inter-RIR transfer policy
that avoids the requirement for needs-based local transfer policy at
the receiving RIR. I think that will be necessary to actually allow
any inter-RIR transfers to APNIC. Since the current proposals are
no-ops unless APNIC changes their transfer policy in Busan, I'm ok
waiting to discuss them at Philly as well.


On Jun 22, 2011, at 8:30 AM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 22, 2011 at 11:21 AM, Chris Grundemann
> <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 21, 2011 at 15:08, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I guess I'm not clear on what the consensus looks like at this point
>>> since I'm under the impression that there is a significant lack of
>>> support community wise.
>> From the straw poll at the PPM in San Juan (116 in the room):
>> 1) 2011-1 as written? 18 in favor, 11 against
>> 2) The principle of creating an inter-RIR transfer policy? 41 in
>> favor, 1 against
>> 3) The principle of a needs-based inter-RIR transfer policy? 36 in
>> favor, 2 against
>> I believe that is exactly what rough consensus looks like. I am forced
>> to characterize that as a _significant *show* of support_ and denounce
>> your claim to the contrary.
>>> But fair enough. Considering the lack of support overall though, I'd
>>> strongly suggest abandonment as a serious issue for continued AC
>>> discussion.
>> Repeating a falsehood does not make it so. The community as a whole
>> has very clearly asked us to work on this policy.
> With the current commentary in the thread offers a much different
> picture. If you're saying that today and commenting on this proposal
> now we have consensus. you are incorrect.
> Best,
> -M<
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list