[arin-ppml] Questions about updated ARIN policy proposal 2011-1

Owen DeLong owen at delong.com
Thu Sep 29 21:55:46 EDT 2011


I support the policy in its current form and believe that the RIR staffs can resolve the issues.

While I realize that the current policy statement may present some awkward or even difficult mechanisms for aligning the policies and applying them going forward, I believe that those safeguards are necessary and that this policy gives staff enough latitude to resolve the issues as they become visible.

Perhaps a later revision to the policy once we have some experience with it will allow us to relax the safeguards and smooth out any rough edges that exist in this first version. However, until such time, I believe that it is important to preserve those safeguards and I will not support removing them.

I do think this policy is important and that we do need to move it forward. I would hate to see it get bogged down in an effort to remove necessary protections.

Owen

On Sep 29, 2011, at 6:43 PM, Bill Darte wrote:

> Paul,
> 
> 2011-1 as is, was written a while back to incorporate all the issues that were raised in order to given them a full hearing in the upcoming meeting.
> Seemed that the proposal as written before was at an impasse and this seemed to be the best way forward.
> Given changes in policy in the APNIC regions, I believe that a compromise that reduces this language to its most simple and compatible form can be achieved...which will gain consensus in the ARIN region. I will be pushing mightily for such.
> 
> Thank you for bringing your comments back before the meeting so that these can be incorporated.  I encourage you to be as explicit as possible about what language you believe would meet that test of simple and compatible.
> 
> Best,
> 
> bd
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net on behalf of Paul Wilson
> Sent: Thu 9/29/2011 7:53 AM
> To: ARIN PPML (ppml at arin.net)
> Subject: [arin-ppml] Questions about updated ARIN policy proposal 2011-1
> 
> I notice an updated version of APNIC proposal 2011-1 here:
> 
>    https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2011_1.html
> 
> My reading of this proposal is that it now incorporates the main aspects of the proposal ARIN-prop-156 which was recently abandoned by the ARIN AC.  Specifically, the 2011-1 now requires both source and recipient to comply with the policies of both of the RIRs involved, apparently requiring ARIN to apply its policies to organisations outside of the ARIN region.  I note also the enshrining of a 3-month demonstrated need policy, which happens to be part of today's ARIN policy anyway, on recipients outside of the ARIN region.
> 
> If this interpretation is correct, I'd like to repeat the practical questions which I previously asked about ARIN-prop-156, as these are now relevant to this one as well: 
> 
> > Is it proposed that ARIN staff would conduct a full need-based assessment of the each recipient, even in another region, including examination of all prior allocations? 
> >
> > Has there been any consideration of the cost and practicality of this approach? 
> >
> > Is it possible that a recipient [in another region] would be asked to pay ARIN to cover the cost of this service? 
> >
> > Would a registration services agreement be required with ARIN?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Paul Wilson
> APNIC.
> 
> ===
> 
> Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1
> ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers
> 
> Date: 22 September 2011
> 
> Policy statement:
> Address resources may be transferred in or out of the ARIN region to those who demonstrate need and plan to deploy them for a networking purpose within 3 months. Such transfers will take place between RIRs who share compatible, needs-based policies supporting entities agreeing to the transfer and which otherwise meet both RIR's policies. Transferred resources will become part of the resource holdings of the recipient RIR unless otherwise agreed by both RIRs.
> Rationale: Since individual RIRs now allow transfers, it makes sense to be able to transfer between regions as well. Reasoning....It is explicit about...
> 
> in or out of region,
> that transfers are between RIRs that support needs-based policies,
> that RIRs have to agree,
> that parties meet all of both RIR policies
> that it is needs based, and the need is for a networking purpose,
> that the receiving RIR is entitled to the addresses
> I think all these details were raised as objections at one time or another...so it seems best to waste a few more words to be explicit.
> It is not explicit about...
> block sizes
> utilization of prior allocations,
> assignments or transfers
> RFC 2050
> subsequent transfers
> Timetable for implementation: Upon ratification by the ARIN Board of Trustees
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ________________________________________________________________________
> Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC                      <dg at apnic.net>
> http://www.apnic.net                                     +61 7 3858 3100
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20110929/e8b6a651/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list