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

[Randy Whitney]

On 10/20/2011 3:58 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Scott Leibrand<scottleibrand at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> But I was hoping you (and anyone else with ideas) could provide actual
>> constructive feedback on how the text could be improved.  If such
>> suggestions are being provided here on list, we can discuss whether they are
>> potential improvements we should incorporate.
>
> Hi Scott,
>
> 1. Pull it out of section 8.3 and put it in its own section 8.4. At no
> time in the process do I recall the community express a desire to
> tamper with section 8.3 as part of the inter-region transfer process.
> While such integration may become desirable in the future it is, IMHO,
> not desirable now. We should implement, learn from and tune the
> inter-region policy long before considering whether or how to
> integrate it with the in-region transfer policy.

I see no problem leaving it in 8.3 for now. Perhaps you can write this
into a subsequent proposal recommending to spin it off into a new section.

> 2. Earlier drafts required potential recipients to meet the
> eligibility criteria set by BOTH regions. While this increases the
> hassle factor associated with transferring addresses in or out of the
> region, I believe it provides a valuable safeguard for this, our first
> attempt at inter-region transfers. If, over time, we find that it's
> all hassle for no benefit, we can remove it.

I have to disagree with this. If both RIRs have implemented "compatible,
needs-based policies" there is no point in having the recipient run the
gauntlet twice, complicating and extending the transfers process.

> 3. Who determines that ARIN and another RIR "share compatible,
> needs-based policies?" Unless we set out explicit criteria, this is an
> open-ended policy-level question which should be decided by
> policy-level people, i.e. the Board. NOT by staff. I offered this
> criticism on the earlier drafts as well and I'm disappointed to see it
> hasn't been addressed.

Would you recommend more specific text here? How about something like
"share compatible needs-based policies as determined by the
[AC|Board|NRO|ICANN|POTUS]"? Perhaps the wording should be more concrete
as to the party who determines whether policies are compatible, but not
as to the point of defining explicit criteria determining compatible
policies.

>>   If not, the choice is between
>> moving forward or delaying.  I'm not sure how delaying another 6 months
>> helps.

I agree. Delaying until the next meeting would not look good. I'll
repeat my first statement of support: I believe we should adopt the
policy, warts and all. To which I will also assert: further alterations
should be addressed through new policy proposals.

Best Regards,
Randy.