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

Martin Hannigan hannigan at gmail.com
Sun May 15 10:55:19 EDT 2011

On Sat, May 14, 2011 at 7:26 PM, Chris Grundemann <cgrundemann at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, May 13, 2011 at 09:13, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 1:34 PM, Bill Darte <BillD at cait.wustl.edu> wrote:
> <snip>
>>> The policy text reviewed at the meeting was as follows:
>>> 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.
>>> ***************
> <snip>
>>> 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".
> <snip>
> Comments:
> 1) There is nothing remotely close to "universal agreement that [RFC
> 2050] not relevant.

Feel free to demonstrate otherwise. So far, I count two denying that
and what appears to be significant opposition to the proposal at
large. I don't see any value in engaging in any discussion arguing for
or against any language around 2050, rather it would be more effective
to find more appropriate language reconciling the issue to move the
concept forward. Feel free to make a suggestion.



More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list