[arin-ppml] Draft proposal that needs some wordsmithing

[David Farmer]

On 5/5/11 15:43 CDT, Mike Burns wrote:
> Hi list,
> I tried to put together a proposal to end needs requirements for
> transfers and I used the APNIC policy as a framework.
> The problem is that as the proposal is structured below, there is a
> problem with the application of ARIN Resource Review policies in section 12.
> Even if the transfer happens without regard to need, since the
> transferred resources would be received by an ARIN account holder and
> would be subject to ARIN's policies, then ARIN could feasibly do a
> resource review immediately post transfer to effectively retain a needs
> requirement.
> My intent is that ARIN resource reviews continue to happen for purposes
> other than need.
> So for fraud, for hijackings, for failure to pay ARIN's bills, I support
> resource review and recovery.
> But not for need.
> I was hoping not to have to mess with section 12 of the NRPM. Can
> somebody suggest a way to modify my draft proposal to effect my intent
> in a graceful manner which doesn't require modifications to section 12?

What if we don't eliminate resource reviews for IPv4, but in the case of 
a finding of unused IPv4 resource the resource must be transferred to 
someone who will put them into use within 12 month or they must be returned.

Basically allow the market to operate freely, but enforce results based 
regulation on the system.  Use the resources, find someone else who 
will, or return them to the pool so ARIN can allocate them.  Just trying 
to think outside the box here.  If we could find a way to make something 
like that work I might I might be willing to go for non-needs based 
transfers.  You get the intent of the needs basis on the backside 
instead of on the front-side.  I think we might end up with what we both 
want in a system like that.

But, there is another issue too;

You are completely replacing all of section 8 with something that only 
allow for the the transfer of IPv4 addresses.  We need to retain the 
general M&A transfer policy because that allows for transfer of IPv6 and 
ASNs in those cases.  Even if we were to completely abandon needs basis 
for IPv4, which I'm not convinced of yet, I'm completely unconvinced 
that we want to do that for IPv6 and ASNs, and I haven't heard you 
arguing for that anyway.



-- 
===============================================
David Farmer               Email:farmer at umn.edu
Networking & Telecommunication Services
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota	
2218 University Ave SE	    Phone: 612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029   Cell: 612-812-9952
===============================================