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

[Owen DeLong]

Sent from my iPad

On May 23, 2011, at 17:50, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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 under RSA 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:

That was a mistake on my part... Resolved above. I intended only to make the edits
necessary to accommodate syntax and grammar.

> 
> 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...  
> 
That could work too. We do lose some specificity, but, I believe that applying the specificity
that we lose to another region is out of scope and beyond our reach or at least beyond
that reach we should be attempting here.

I really think we should make a genuine effort not to dictate policy to other regions beyond
the bare minimum necessary to preserve needs-basis in light of that particular incompatibility.

I don't think, for example, that a recipient in another region should have to sign an ARIN RSA
or that it is up to us to require an RSA exist in other regions.

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

Thoughts, anyway.

Owen

>  
>> 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> 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).
>>> 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.
>> 
> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110523/b71a7853/attachment.htm>