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

Mike Burns mike at nationwideinc.com
Mon May 23 18:00:32 EDT 2011


Hi Scott,

In the context of this proposal, may I ask what would happen if APNIC accepted a transfer of ARIN legacy addresses and updated their Whois, even if ARIN refused the transfer?
(Because the language of the proposal pointedly excludes APNIC, if their current policy remains in place.)
I know that ARIN could revoke and reissue.
How is inter-RIR conflict resolved, is there a process in place for conflict resolution?
Do the RIRs generally have compatible needs-based transfer policies, I mean I know APNIC doesn't, but do the other RIRs have the same 3-month window, for example?
Is a difference in the needs window enough to prevent a transfer?
If so, do we need to consider other RIRs  and the impact on inter-RIR transfers when we consider proposals to change the needs window?
What if RIPE joins APNIC with a requirement like a /24 maximum, is that something that makes the needs requirements incompatible?
I guess I am asking for a more detailed definition of the word "compatible" in your proposed language.
Maybe that language is extraneous, as you are already requiring both RIRs to agree?

Regards,
Mike




  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Scott Leibrand 
  To: Owen DeLong 
  Cc: ARIN-PPML List 
  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...

    I would like to see us relocate the
    single aggregate clause to make it binding on the actual community intent and if we're
    going to turn 2011-1 into a policy to modify 8.3 anyway, we should incorporate that
    change.


  I would like to see another proposal to do this (and to be discussed as a counterpoint to ARIN-prop-144 in Philadelphia). 

    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:

        a.. to a specified organizational recipient within the ARIN region, or 
        b.. 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110523/e79d311e/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list