[arin-ppml] Integrating Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 into NRPM 8.3

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Mon May 23 18:50:04 EDT 2011


On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 3:15 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

> How about this, instead...
>
> 8.3 Transfers to Specified Recipients
>
> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may be
> released to ARIN
> by the authorized resource holder, in whole or in part, for transfer:
>
> + to specified organizational recipient(s) within the ARIN region
> that will receive such resources as a single aggregate, in the
> exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies
>
> + to another RIR, for transfer to a specified recipient in that RIR's
> service
> region, if the two RIRs agree and maintain compatible, needs-based
> transfer policies.
>
> In other words, let's bind the latter requirements only to the
> intra-regional transfers
> as I believe that they are out of scope for the burdens we should be
> allowed to
> place on inter-regional transfers on the part of the other RIR.
>

That might work.  I notice that you changed the language you moved to the
first bullet, though (dropping the RSA requirement, for example).  Perhaps
the following text would minimize the side effects (good and bad) of moving
the text:

In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may be
released to ARIN
by the authorized resource holder, in whole or in part, for transfer:

+ under RSA, to specified organizational recipient(s) within the ARIN region
that can demonstrate the need for such resources, as a single aggregate, in
the exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies.

+ to another RIR, for transfer to a specified recipient in that RIR's
service region, if the two RIRs agree and maintain compatible,
needs-based transfer policies.

But I wonder if we're not losing some specificity by making that language
apply only to in-region transfers...

Thoughts?  (Especially from anyone else who hasn't spoken up yet?)


> I would like to see us relocate the
>> single aggregate clause to make it binding on the actual community intent
>> and if we're
>> going to turn 2011-1 into a policy to modify 8.3 anyway, we should
>> incorporate that
>> change.
>>
>
> I would like to see another proposal to do this (and to be discussed as a
> counterpoint to ARIN-prop-144 in Philadelphia).
>
>
>
> Fair enough... Remember, you asked for it. ;-)
>

Heh.  I didn't say I'd support it, but I think we should discuss it.

-Scott

On May 23, 2011, at 15:54, Scott Leibrand < <scottleibrand at gmail.com>
scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> In light of the discomfort a number of community and AC members feel with
>> the original 2011-1 text, I thought I'd make an attempt at integrating it
>> into the framework of NRPM 8.3, to see if the result would be tighter and
>> less ambiguous.  Here's what I came up with:
>>
>> 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients
>>
>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources may be
>> released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder, in whole or in part, for
>> transfer:
>>
>>    - to a specified organizational recipient within the ARIN region, or
>>    - to another RIR, for transfer to a specified organizational recipient
>>    in that RIR's service region, if the two RIRs agree and maintain compatible,
>>    needs-based transfer policies.
>>
>> Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA by
>> organizations that can demonstrate the need for such resources, as a single
>> aggregate, in the exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN
>> policies.
>>
>>
> How about "Such number resources may only be received under RSA by
> organizations that can demonstrate the need for such resources, as a single
> aggregate, in the exact amount which they can justify under current ARIN, or
> recipient RIR, policies." ?
>
> Or, feel free to suggest text...
>
> -Scott
>
>
>>
>> For reference, existing policy reads:
>> 8.3. Transfers to Specified Recipients
>>
>> In addition to transfers under section 8.2, IPv4 number resources within
>> the ARIN region may be released to ARIN by the authorized resource holder,
>> in whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational
>> recipient. Such transferred number resources may only be received under RSA
>> by organizations that are within the ARIN region and can demonstrate the
>> need for such resources, as a single aggregate, in the exact amount which
>> they can justify under current ARIN policies.
>>
>> And original 2011-1 text reads:
>> 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.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> PPML
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ( <ARIN-PPML at arin.net>
>> ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
>> <http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
>> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
>> Please contact <info at arin.net>info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110523/263bc714/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list