[arin-ppml] 2011-1 dissent Was: Re: ARIN-2011-1: ARINInter-RIRTransfers - Last Call

[Mike Burns]

Hi John,

Thanks, then the effect of current policy would be to prevent people from acquiring space from the free pool and then selling it within a year.
All to the good.

In that case I will simply say in answer to Cathy that I support stringent needs tests for free pool allocations and no needs test for all transfers, within and outside our region.
This would put ARIN members on an equal footing with the rest of the world and assuage the doubts Bill Herrin rightly has about fairness, should another RIR change policies to remove or reduce needs tests.

In the converse case you present, I would support a policy whereby those who sell addresses may not tap the free pool again, even if their needs change and they have a justifiable need.
Let them get their new addresses from the transfer market.

But I don’t want to take this discussion off the rails.

Let me say to Bill and others that should another RIR decide to remove or reduce needs tests for transfers, leaving ARIN members at an unfair disadvantage, the expedient solution is to have ARIN drop their needs requirements for transfers, restoring fairness. 

Regards,
Mike


From: John Curran 
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 11:17 AM
To: Mike Burns 
Cc: CJ Aronson ; William Herrin ; arin-ppml at arin.net 
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] 2011-1 dissent Was: Re: ARIN-2011-1: ARINInter-RIRTransfers - Last Call

On Oct 21, 2011, at 10:44 AM, Mike Burns wrote:


  IMO, yes, there should be a stringent justification for need for free pool addresses, and no need justification for transfers, as long as we prevent gaming the system through simple expedients like preventing transfers of addresses from those who have tapped the free pool less than a year ago, and limiting needs-free transfers to less than a /12 per year.

Mike - 

    A party which requests assignments from ARIN's free pool
    based on documented need, and then subsequently attempts 
    to transfer them within 12 months is likely to be considered
    an attempt at number resource fraud under existing policy
    (as they filed documentation which explained their need and 
    which they now no longer have, but now replaced by a desire
    for monetization of the obtained resources)   ARIN is highly
    likely to initiate NRPM 12 resource review to confirm that the
    original request for resources was not fraudulent in nature.

    I cannot state the converse is true (a party which transfers
    addresses suddenly having developed a new need for more
    addresses because of changing circumstances)  We would
    obviously carefully evaluate the request, but are unlikely to
    be able to prevent making an otherwise valid assignment
    without specific policy guidance which prevents that form 
    of "gaming the system".  I do not know if such policy would
    be desirable but note it for completeness in consideration of
    the proposed draft policy.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20111021/b45bae47/attachment.htm>