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

[Mike Burns]

> What is to be gained by including that language, except to engender
> Inter-RIR conflict?
> The wording already includes both RIRs to approve the transfer.
> There is no definition in the policy or elsewhere in the NRPM of
> "compatible" needs policies.
> I don't see the point in including it.

The point of that statement is to signal the intentions of the ARIN
community both to ARIN staff and to other RIRs. It provides guidance
to ARIN staff that they should not agree to any transfer that does not
include needs-based policy on the recipient end. It also ensures that
recipients in other regions will not be surprised when a transfer is
denied for lack of said needs-based policies. The point, in short, is
clarity and transparency.

Cheers,
~Chris


Hi Chris,

But how clear is it exactly?
Do you mean it to signal that *any* needs test is compatible?
If that is the intent, then I think the language can be clearer.
If you want clarity, then using a subjective word like "compatible" which is 
undefined in the proposal is sub-optimal.
Since its definition and application is left to ARIN staff, and ARIN staff 
is required to decide on transfer approval anyway, I don't see any great 
clarity or transparency.
What I do see reads like a political statement added onto a policy proposal, 
to no real effect except to exacerbate inter-RIR tensions.
What better way to incite the APNIC stewards to unilaterally decide to 
accept transfers into their region of legacy space with no RSA in place?
This is currently a lacuna in policy awaiting a test case, as far as I know.

It's not like there are hundreds of different transfer policies, I'm sure 
those requesting inter-RIR transfers will be aware of the current policies 
without brandishing our disdain for their version of stewardship in 
additional and functionally inoperative language.

Regards,
Mike