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

[Owen DeLong]

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
direction.

> 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.

Owen