[arin-ppml] Prop-151: Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 transfers

[Alexander, Daniel]

Bill, 

Thank you for clarifying your point. If I understand you correctly, needs
requirements should be consistent across all regions for inter-RIR
transfers to be equitable to those within the ARIN region. To achieve this
parity, you feel it is more appropriate to define requirements through
global policy, and not through local pressures exerted on another RIR. You
also mention on the other end, that ARIN could race to the bottom and
reduce it's requirements to match all the other regions, but that may be a
premature approach.

A concern I have is that a global needs review proposal would take years
to work through. I would also assume that it is not operationally
sustainable having ARIN vet all requests both in and out of region. Do you
think these are fair assumptions, or would you prefer that ARIN review the
requests of recipients outside of the region? Is there a middle ground or
alternative you would find acceptable in a proposal that did not define
the policies of another RIR?

Dan Alexander
Speaking as AC Shepherd for 151


On 1/17/12 11:25 AM, "William Herrin" <bill at herrin.us> wrote:

>On Mon, Jan 16, 2012 at 1:22 PM, Alexander, Daniel
><Daniel_Alexander at cable.comcast.com> wrote:
>> My impression is that the word "compatible" provides the flexibility to
>> the RIR without imposing the burden of having to review every request.
>>If
>> ARIN staff observes transfer behavior in a region that is questionable,
>>it
>> could raise the issue to the AC and the BoT. I would presume that
>> inter-RIR transfers could then be put on hold while an understanding of
>> the situation is achieved.
>
>Dan,
>
>You're missing the point. It isn't a question of other RIRs behaving
>badly, it's about what happens when each RIR behaves normally and
>reasonably. Under 2011-1, the other RIR will apply their ordinary
>policies to the recipient. If not behaving badly, they'll apply the
>same policies they apply to any other recipient.
>
>In general, those policies are less strict than ARINs. Not because of
>any malfeasance but because that's how they chose to set their own
>local policies. This means that an ARIN recipient will have a harder
>time qualifying his network to ARIN for receipt of a particular
>transfer of ARIN-region addresses than an out-region recipient to his
>RIR for the same transfer.
>
>That's unfair. Were it an ARIN-region registrant trying to transfer
>addresses from another region that unfairness wouldn't be so
>objectionable. But when it's an ARIN-region registrant trying to
>capture ARIN-region addresses, the unfairness is manifest.
>
>-Bill
>
>
>-- 
>William D. Herrin ................ herrin at dirtside.com  bill at herrin.us
>3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <http://bill.herrin.us/>
>Falls Church, VA 22042-3004