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

Frank Bulk frnkblk at iname.com
Tue May 24 23:35:32 EDT 2011


Since currently ARIN policy implements the needs-basis, isn't mentioning
that requirement in 2011-1 redundant?  Or are you concerned that some ARIN
policies might remove the needs-basis requirement and you want to preserve
the requirement in the inter-RIR transfer?

 

Frank

 

From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, May 24, 2011 12:47 AM
To: Scott Leibrand
Cc: ARIN-PPML List
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Integrating Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 into NRPM 8.3

 

I still would prefer to see the needs-basis comment preserved as well.

 

Owen

 

On May 23, 2011, at 10:07 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:





So perhaps:

 

+ to another RIR, for transfer to a specified recipient in that RIR's
service region, if both RIRs agree and the request meets both RIRs' transfer
policies.

 

I agree it's useful to preserve discretion. I think I might prefer this to
the text I originally had below...  Thoughts?

Scott


On May 23, 2011, at 9:56 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

I prefer to preserve the safety valve of requiring agreement from both RIRs.

 

Owen

 

On May 23, 2011, at 8:53 PM, Frank Bulk wrote:





Why don't we change the second point to:

 

+ to another RIR, for transfer to a specified recipient in that RIR's
service

region, if the request meets both RIRS' transfer policies.

 

Frank

 

 

 

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Scott Leibrand <mailto:scottleibrand at gmail.com> 

To: Owen DeLong <mailto:owen at delong.com> 

Cc: ARIN-PPML List <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> 

Sent: Monday, May 23, 2011 5:21 PM

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

 

On Mon, May 23, 2011 at 2:05 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

I could support this, but, I have a couple of lingering concerns.

 

I think that the last sentence dictates too much in the case of a transfer
to another region and should only apply to transfers within the ARIN region.

 

Yeah, I was wondering about that myself.  Possible slight revision inline
below...

 

 

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.

 

  _____  

_______________________________________________
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.

 

_______________________________________________
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.

 

_______________________________________________
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/20110524/a54e615c/attachment.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list