[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - revised

[Kevin Kargel]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Owen DeLong [mailto:owen at delong.com]
> Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2011 3:09 PM
> To: Kevin Kargel
> Cc: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR
> Transfers - revised
> 
> 
> On Sep 22, 2011, at 12:47 PM, Kevin Kargel wrote:
> 
> >
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Why is that?  Do you feel that justified needs in the ARIN region are
> >> more important than justified needs in any other region?
> >
> > I will jump on this soapbox..  yes, I think one should take care of ones
> own first.  It is similar to my feelings on charities, I take care of my
> immediate families needs first, then I look to extended family (brothers,
> cousins, inlaws), then I look to charities in my local community, then I
> look to charities in my state, then I look to charities I am involved in.
> If After all that I find I have money left over I don't know what to do
> with I will consider donating to far off charites.
> >
> > ARIN should do the same, ARIN should keep IP addresses until such a time
> that ARIN has *NO* need for the IP addresses, at which time it would be
> very reasonable to look around for someone else that could use them.
> > To my mind this would mean that ARIN should not transfer address space
> out of region until they can forecast no requests or need for the
> foreseeable future.
> >
> > If you don't agree with this I will gladly accept your kids lunch money
> and college funds, or is your need more important than mine?
> >
> 
> If we were talking about addresses issued by ARIN, I would be inclined to
> agree with you.
> 
> However, since we are talking about market transfers where the two RIRs
> are merely
> recording the transaction and assuring that the recipient meets policy
> (has need), I do
> not see any overall benefit to limiting such transactions to occurring
> within region.
> 
> I do see a number of problems with doing so. First, having the RIRs run
> out at radically
> different times will create some rather unfortunate dynamics and prolong
> the pain of
> IPv6 transition in the ARIN region. Second, since such prohibition is
> basically arrogant
> and greedy, it will make us look arrogant and greedy.
> 
> APNIC recently restored needs basis to their transfer policy. This means
> that the ball
> is in our court now and if we once again reject a policy agreed upon in
> every other
> region, we will send a clear message that the ARIN community is not
> interested in
> being a good neighbor to the rest of the world. That we are focused only
> on our own
> selfish internal interests. This would be, quite frankly, the kind of
> failure that certain
> opponents of the RIR system (and NGO-based internet governance in general)
> are
> looking for.
> 
> I do not feel that 2011-1 is the ideal inter-RIR transfer policy, but, I
> think it is necessary
> and it is good enough for now. We need to adopt this and move forward.
> ARIN is
> sitting on more than twice as much free-space as any other RIR. Failing to
> allow
> inter-regional transfers is failing to live up to our obligations as
> citizens of a global
> community.
> 
> Owen

I hear what you are saying Owen, but I still feel that if we have excess space the more reasonable and efficient option would be to return the space to IANA or whatever "up the food chain" entity is appropriate.  

Responsibly returning space for redistribution would fend off any accusations of selfishness or self interest.  Instead of making us look "arrogant and greedy" as it would if we were hoarding, returning space would let us avoid being accused of being dictatorial or uncooperative in our behaviors as citizens of the global community.

IANAL (npi) and I have not gone through the agreements with IANA, are there provisions dictating ARIN's behavior in the event that we find ourselves with a surplus of space?

Kevin