[arin-ppml] Draft Proposal 2011-1 - Comments request - Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Fri May 13 14:12:47 EDT 2011

On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 1:30 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>>> 2. If objections exist, to succinctly identify what they are..and,
>> The references to RFC 2050 which in the last 6 months has enjoyed
>> almost universal agreement that it's not relevant; it was written in
>> 1996 in a time and place that is far different than today, it was a
>> Best *Current* Practice (emphasis added) "BCP".
> Just because you keep saying this doesn't make it true. I have only
> heard a small handful of people argue that RFC 2050 is not relevant.
> The vast majority of the community seems to still believe that it is.

And just because you keep saying that it's not true doesn't mean that
it's not. There's ample evidence supporting my claim including
activity at the ICANN ASO AC and NRO NC to deprecate it. That kinda
sorta speaks pretty loudly. There has also been plenty of discussion
here with most agreeing that it's "outdated". Please, feel free to
demonstrate that it's relevant in some way.

>> Finally, how is this proposal being coordinated globally?
> I believe the beauty of this particular proposal is that it does not
> need to be. It spells out a way in which other RIRs can pass
> compatible policies which would allow ARIN to approve
> such transfers.

That means it will be mostly incompatible with the intent of global
coordination. I suggest we remove the coordinated part and simply call
it inter-RIR transfer process. It doesnt require global adoption nor
ICANN approval as far as I can tell.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list