[arin-ppml] Draft Proposal 2011-1 - Comments request - Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy

[Martin Hannigan]

On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> Hello,
>
> After the San Juan meeting, the Advisory Council tried to resolve
> differences of opinion among themselves and to ascertain the level of
> consensus around Draft Policy 2011-1 Globally Coordinated Transfer
> Policy...and also to determine what objections still remain.
>
> The policy text reviewed at the meeting was as follows:
> Any RIR's resource registrant may transfer IPv4 addresses to the resource
> registrant of another RIR as long as the two RIRs agree and maintain
> compatible, needs-based transfer policies that exercise Internet stewardship
> consistent with the values expressed in RFC2050.
> ***************
>
> It was clear from the meeting that the community wanted the AC to continue
> to work on this policy.  I have asked each AC member to join this
> conversation along with your input to:
> 1. Identify support or objection

Objection.

> 2. If objections exist, to succinctly identify what they are..and,

The references to RFC 2050 which in the last 6 months has enjoyed
almost universal agreement that it's not relevant; it was written in
1996 in a time and place that is far different than today, it was a
Best *Current* Practice (emphasis added) "BCP".

> 3. How objections might be concisely remedied in text
>

Remove the reference to RFC 2050 and state something along the lines
of transfers being in the ARIN communities interest.

I would also argue that transparency will be critical and some
additional text around reporting requirements might be relevant.
Additional discussion around needs-based requirements would be also be
interesting.

Finally, how is this proposal being coordinated globally?

Best,

-M<