[arin-ppml] 2011-1 dissent Was: Re: ARIN-2011-1:ARINInter-RIRTransfers - Last Call
owen at delong.com
Tue Oct 25 05:44:02 EDT 2011
On Oct 24, 2011, at 10:58 PM, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 8:39 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Oct 24, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Jimmy Hess <mysidia at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> An example of a failsafe would be "You can't effect a specified
>>> transfer of any part of an allocation received
>>> in the past X months, or an inter-RIR transfer of any part of an
>>> allocation received in the past Y months"
>> I would encourage you (or anyone in the community) to submit a policy
>> proposal along these lines. (I know Owen also had some suggested text.) If
>> we get such a policy proposal moving along through the PDP now, we could
>> have it implemented via the normal calendar in about 6 months if there's
>> consensus for it. If significant abuse materializes before then that cannot
>> be easily dealt with by ARIN under existing policy, it would also be good to
>> have something that we've already discussed and come to rough consensus on.
>> That way the Board could implement a draft policy that has already had
>> significant community discussion (rather than creating an ad-hoc remedy or
>> suspending 2011-1) if it becomes necessary.
> Jimmy, I believe that's what's known as "being an enabler" for someone
> engaged in undesirable behavior.
> Scott, someone asked earlier in the thread what the rush to do this
> now instead of in 6 months is. I'm still waiting for someone to
> articulate a satisfactory answer. I don't care why it's important to
> APNIC registrants, I want to know why it's important to ARIN
> registrants that we do this right now.
Contrary to the opinions expressed here by some, it is important to
do this now because of need in the APNIC region. We have a
responsibility of stewardship. While our service region is defined
more narrowly, we are also part of a global community (NRO) and
we have a responsibility to work with the other members of the NRO
to accomplish good stewardship of the resources on a global scale,
not just within our region.
Hoarding resources while another region suffers under shortage
is not good global stewardship. This is a small step in the right
> Even if there is a good reason to rush, the conservative course of
> action would be to advance 2011-1 after restoring the stronger
> protections that were in the earlier text and then spend the next 6
> months talking about how to tone them down to something less onerous.
> That would avoid any chance of the board needing to take emergency
> action and, oh by the way, it's what cautious stewardship of a
> resource is all about.
There are tradeoffs in either direction and there are consequences
to delay just as there may be consequences to some of the holes
in the present draft. I honestly can't say which choice carries the
bigger risk and I'm not sure that anyone has enough information
available to make an accurate judgment on the question.
More information about the ARIN-PPML