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

[William Herrin]

On Tue, Oct 25, 2011 at 5:44 AM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:
> On Oct 24, 2011, at 10:58 PM, William Herrin wrote
>> 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.

Still waiting to hear why it's important to the *ARIN region* that we
do this now.

I don't think anyone fails to understand why APNIC is in a hurry for
ARIN to implement this sort of policy.


> 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.

Owen,

Repeat after me. ARIN is not IANA. Our responsibility is first to our region.


Global cooperation benefits everybody, including our region. But the
devil is in the details and those details have to well serve our
region too. Every indication we've gotten from exploring with John
Curran the way in which ARIN would implement the current 2011-1 draft
has suggested problems in those details.



>> 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.

Would you articulate the RISK of consequences you see to the ARIN
region from delaying this policy for another 6-month cycle while we
hash out appropriate protections?

Would you articular the RISK of consequences you see to the ARIN
region from installing strong protections in an immediate policy (e.g.
making recipients meet ARIN justified need criteria regardless of
their region) and then toning them down with subsequent policy over
the next 6 months?

I have, I believe, expansively articulated the risk to the ARIN region
from advancing this proposal with the lack of protections in the
current draft, the main ones being:

1. Much easier and therefore unfair out-region access to ARIN
transfers than in-region access.
2. Enabling the out-region loss of the remaining ARIN free pool.
3. Likelihood of unforeseen and unintended consequences from rewriting
the in-region transfer policy when only authorship of an out-region
transfer policy was requested by the community.

Regards,
Bill Herrin


-- 
William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004