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

[Owen DeLong]

On May 26, 2011, at 2:28 PM, Mike Burns wrote:

>> 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?

Pretty clear, actually. Especially to the RIRs whose staff have a pretty
good understanding of what we mean.

> Do you mean it to signal that *any* needs test is compatible?

I believe that all of the RIRs would consider the current needs-basis in the
other RIRs to be compatible. They are relatively similar. The incompatibility
that exists today to the best of my knowledge would be limited to APNIC
where their transfer policy contains the same defect you are proposing to
add to ARIN policy.

However, I can imagine needs tests that could be devised that would
be incompatible.

> If that is the intent, then I think the language can be clearer.

It isn't the exact intent.

> If you want clarity, then using a subjective word like "compatible" which is undefined in the proposal is sub-optimal.

We want greater clarity than we can achieve without it. Due to the dynamic nature of the situation, however,
perfect clarity would be suboptimal, even if it could be achieved.

> 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.

Actually, it is left to the staff of both RIRs, but, this still serves as notice to ARIN staff that they must include
this test in one of their considerations of whether or not to approve the transfer. Without it, ARIN might not
consider that one of the necessary items for approval.

> What I do see reads like a political statement added onto a policy proposal, to no real effect except to exacerbate inter-RIR tensions.

Perhaps this comes from your unique perspective which doesn't seem to be shared by the RIRs.

> 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?

There's really no facility for them to do so and short of passing a policy that specifically permitted that in the ARIN region, I do not believe
they would act in such a manner.

> This is currently a lacuna in policy awaiting a test case, as far as I know.
> 
"Lacuna policy"? Not familiar with the term and couldn't find a reference with a quick google.

> 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.
> 

It is neither functionally inoperative, nor a statement of disdain. It is a statement of intent.
Nothing more, nothing less.

Owen