[arin-ppml] Draft Proposal 2011-1

[Rudolph Daniel]

I am not in favor of "Any RIR's resource registrant may transfer IPv4
addresses to the resource
registrant of another RIR" as it is my belief that such a proposal would
hype up the transfer market and has the possibility to split the RIRs into
those who fit ARIN's needs based transfer policies and those who do not....
rd


> >> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu>
> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >>> 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.
> >>> ***************
> > <snip>
> >
> >>> 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".
> > <snip>
> >
> > Comments:
> > 1) There is nothing remotely close to "universal agreement that [RFC
> > 2050] not relevant.
>
> Feel free to demonstrate otherwise. So far, I count two denying that
> and what appears to be significant opposition to the proposal at
> large. I don't see any value in engaging in any discussion arguing for
> or against any language around 2050, rather it would be more effective
> to find more appropriate language reconciling the issue to move the
> concept forward. Feel free to make a suggestion.
>
> Best,
>
> -M<
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110515/1db4257d/attachment.htm>