[arin-ppml] DP 2011-1 - How has the meaning changed?

Bill Darte BillD at cait.wustl.edu
Thu Nov 10 06:25:29 EST 2011


We keep hearing about the differences in current (last call)language of
DP 2011-1 from that presented at the Philadelphia PPM.  And, how that
change took place just hours after the PPM meeting and just hours before
the AC meeting, and again IN the AC meeting.  That is all very
true....and true to the mission of the AC in supporting community policy

What is important is not the magnitude or timing of the wording changes,
but how faithful those changes were to reflecting what the community
calls for and the original intent of the DP whose language is changing.

Earlier I asked persons objecting to the last call language to provide
specifics about how the newly crafted language of 2011-1 varies from the
objectives and intent of the flawed language of 2011-1 presented in
Philadelphia. I did not get any explicit answers.  I ask for the same

The objectives for DP 2011-1 were pointed out in the Philly presentation
and were a composite of feedback and suggestions that were offered by
the community on PPML and at the Puerto Rico PPM.  I list them here with
a link reference to the presentation from Philly.

The objective from Page 3 of my presentation ...
The intent is to expand the existing NRPM 8.3 Specified Transfer Policy
to give those wishing to transfer IPv4 addresses more flexibility in
their transfers

>From Page 8 of my presentation....
It[the DP language] is explicit about... 
in or out of region,
that transfers are between RIRs that support needs-based policies, 
that RIRs have to agree, 
that parties meet all of both RIR policies 
that it is needs based, and the need is for a networking purpose, 
that the receiving RIR is entitled to the addresses

For reference I am attaching the language from the meeting presentation
AND as revised and sent to last call...

Ill formed DP text presented at the meeting:
Address resources may be transferred in or out of the ARIN region to
those who demonstrate need and plan to deploy them for a networking
purpose within 3 months. Such transfers will take place between RIRs who
share compatible, needs-based policies supporting entities agreeing to
the transfer and which otherwise meet both RIR's policies. Transferred
resources will become part of the resource holdings of the recipient RIR
unless otherwise agreed by both RIRs.

Revised DP text sent to last call:
IPv4 address resources may be transferred to organizations in another
RIR's service region if they demonstrate need to their region's RIR,
according to that RIR's policies. Inter-regional transfers may take
place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share compatible,
needs-based policies. Such resources must be transferred in blocks of
/24 or larger and will become part of the resource holdings of the
recipient RIR

Note that the language is more specific about the policy being about
IPv4 and that both RIR policies are to be complied with.  It is also
explicit about block size which corresponds with expected minimum
routing policies which was assumed in the presented text.

Please indicate what has changed that makes this some 'new' draft policy
rather than a re-wording of the 'same' DP?

Bill Darte
Shepherd, DP 2011-1


> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net 
> [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Bill Sandiford
> Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2011 8:57 PM
> To: Robert Seastrom; arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] What do you think of 2011-1 (now in 
> Last Call)?
> Hi All,
> I've stayed out of the PPML debate on this one so far, but 
> I'm going to take a moment now and give everyone my thoughts.
> First of all, in the interests of full disclosure, I want to 
> put something on the record.  I, speaking for myself 
> personally, do not like the idea of Inter-RIR transfers at 
> all.  The reasons why are irrelevant to this discussion so I 
> won't go into them here.
> That being said, my duty as an AC member is to work 
> productively on policies that are desired by the community 
> whether or not they align with my personal views.  This is 
> one of those cases where my personal views do not align with 
> the will of the community so I have "checked my personal 
> views at the door".  It is clear that the community wants an 
> Inter-RIR transfer policy and I will work hard to ensure that 
> it is done properly.
> Now on to this policy itself.
> I believe that as part of the process, any policy text that 
> gets implemented should go before the community at a PPM.  
> The current text has never seen a PPM, and if the current 
> course is stayed it never will.  In fact, the current policy 
> text, in its entirety, was drafted by an AC Member less than 
> 24 hours before it was advanced to last call.  As an AC 
> Member, I only saw this text a few hours before I was asked 
> to vote on it.
>  This seems very very wrong to me.
> If this was text that was merely revised I might be able to 
> support this.
> But this is not *revised* text, this is *completely 
> rewritten* text.  Not a single sentence from a version 
> presented at any PPM is in this text.
> Not only has the text been re-written, but it has changed 
> sections too.
> I won't go out as far as others have to say that this is an 
> "end run" on the PDP, but I certainly believe that a 100% 
> revision by the AC at last call is beyond my interpretation 
> of the *spirit* of the PDP.  I will however note that it is 
> my opinion only.
> For all of the reasons above, I do NOT support the policy as 
> it stands now in last call.  I believe this policy needs to 
> stay on the docket to be cleaned up, presented at the next 
> PPM, and then adopted (assuming the community wishes for it 
> to be at that time).
> Regards,
> Bill
> On 11-11-07 6:11 PM, "Robert Seastrom" <ppml at rs.seastrom.com> wrote:
> >
> >Hi everyone,
> >
> >By my count, since it went to last call we've heard from 19 distinct 
> >people in threads involving 2011-1 ("ARIN INTER-RIR TRANSFERS").
> >
> >Of those people, 12 were in favor, 5 were against, and 2 did 
> not make a 
> >clear statement.
> >
> >2011-1 is in Last Call until November 16th.  If you have an 
> opinion on 
> >it the AC would love to hear from you.  Please reply to this message 
> >and state clearly in the first couple of sentences whether 
> you support 
> >or oppose 2011-1 as written.  Everyone's opinion is appreciated.
> >
> >We would like to take this up at our call on Wednesday the 
> 16th, which 
> >is at 1600 EST.  To make sure your voice is heard, please respond no 
> >later than 1200 EST (0900 PST, 1700 UTC) on Wednesday, 
> November 16th 2011.
> >
> >Thank you,
> >
> >-r (Shepherd, 2011-1).
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list