[arin-ppml] ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Last Call

[Owen DeLong]

Sent from my iPad

On Oct 19, 2011, at 10:33 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 4:02 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 19, 2011, at 9:36 PM, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 3:11 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
>>>> 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 or another RIR, in
>>>> whole or in part, for transfer to another specified organizational
>>>> recipient.  Organizations in the ARIN region may receive transferred
>>>> number resources under RSA if they can demonstrate the need for such
>>>> resources in the amount which they can justify under current ARIN policies.
>>>> 
>>>> 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.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Am I the only one who doesn't think that transfers between ARIN
>>> registrants and transfers between RIR's should be mashed into the same
>>> policy subsection?
>> 
>> They aren't. There is nothing about transfers between RIR's here other than the role the RIRs play in transfers between registrants in different RIR's service regions.
> 
> I don't think in-region transfers between two ARIN registrants and
> out-region transfers between an ARIN registrant and a non-ARIN
> registrant belong in the same subsection. I think mashing them
> together in one section clutters and confuses the issues for both.
> 
> Would you like me to find another few ways to restate my objection, or
> are you tracking now despite any other possible ways to interpret the
> words?
> 
> 

Ah, OK... sorry, I misread your original message. My bad.
Yes, I'm tracking now. I understand your objection. I don't agree with 
it in this case and think that maintaining parallel and separate policies
proved to be a distinct form of rat hole in multiple attempts.

> 
>>> Besides, doesn't this language prevent inter-region address transfer
>>> due to mergers or acquisitions? If I want to buy a web hosting shop
>>> and move it off shore, why should I be denied?
>>> 
>> There remain all the same options that have always existed under section 8.2 for such actions.
> 
> Which are?

I will happily discuss this with you in another thread or off-list, but, they really
aren't germane to the current topic and I don't want to hijack the thread down
that particular rat-hole.

> 
> 2011-1 as published 9/22/11 applied equally to 8.2 and 8.3 transfers.
> 
> 
> I also object to the end-run around the PDP. The AC is not empowered
> to insert a proposal directly to Last Call and this proposal is (at
> best) the "same idea" as proposal 2011-1. Structurally, it's a whole
> new proposal which should go through the normal draft and discussion
> process. Should the board feel action is urgent, they alone hold the
> authority to jump that process.
> 

Bill, with all due respect, this is the same idea as 2011-1 and in fact largely the same policy. The AC is empowered to amend draft policies based on community feedback and send the result to last call. That is what happened in this case. There was significant community feedback at the meeting and the majority of the AC felt that this policy incorporated the original stated intent of the draft policy as well as the feedback received from the community on the mailing list and at the PPM.

Owen