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

[Jeffrey Lyon]

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 8:33 AM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> Thanks Jeffrey,
>
> So, you believe that all legacy space originally captured within the ARIN db
> to be 'ARIN Resources'?  And, if any of that space were to come available
> while there is need within ARIN it should be used in the ARIN region....even
> if there is need outside the ARIN region as well?
>
> And, if the resources were to come available and there was ONLY need outside
> the ARIN region, (however unlikely), then the resources should be HELD
> against future ARIN need, even though there was need outside of ARIN region?
>
> bd
> ________________________________
> From: jeffrey.lyon at gmail.com on behalf of Jeffrey Lyon
> Sent: Fri 5/13/2011 5:46 PM
> To: William Herrin
> Cc: Bill Darte; arin ppml
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Proposal 2011-1 - Comments request - Globally
> Coordinated Transfer Policy
>
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 6:08 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 1. Identify support or objection
>>
>> Hi Bill,
>>
>> Oppose.
>>
>>> 2. If objections exist, to succinctly identify what they are..and,
>>
>> a. I'm not convinced we should be contemplating inter-region transfers
>> prior to ARIN's free pool exhausting.
>> b. I'm not convinced *any* of the 5 RIRs adhere to RFC2050's "values"
>> except in a very loose way... which makes it a weak and subjective
>> place to hang a policy.
>>
>>
>>> 3. How objections might be concisely remedied in text
>>
>> "ARIN shall permit the transfer of IPv4 addresses between ARIN
>> registrants and registrants of other RIRs provided that:
>>
>> a. Both ARIN and the other RIR agree to the transfer,
>> b. ARIN and the other RIR have functionally reciprocal inter-region
>> transfer policies, and
>> c. Both the offering and receiving registrants qualify for the
>> transfer under ARIN's normal intra-region resource transfer policies
>> save that one of the registrants is not in the ARIN region and will
>> therefore not be under contract to ARIN."
>>
>> Regards,
>> Bill Herrin
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>> 3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>> Falls Church, VA 22042-3004
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> 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.
>>
>
> I strongly oppose any measure that would open the doors to ARIN
> resources flowing outside of ARIN.
>
> --
> Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
> jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
> Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
> First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions
>

Bill,

My position is that the elected officials of ARIN are accountable to
ARIN region and should only be concerned with securing resources for
use within ARIN.

As a practical matter, every region is going to have need far beyond
supply but I am not comfortable with any policy which would open the
door to a decision that somehow another region's need is more
important.

-- 
Jeffrey Lyon, Leadership Team
jeffrey.lyon at blacklotus.net | http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications - AS32421
First and Leading in DDoS Protection Solutions