[arin-ppml] ARIN-2012-3: ASN Transfers - Last Call

[Owen DeLong]

On May 2, 2012, at 12:32 PM, Alexander, Daniel wrote:

> 
> I will probably get flamed for this one, but I wanted to try and explain
> why I voted against this proposal during the AC meeting.
> 
> If I borrow some wording from the proposed PDP, when the AC has to
> determine consensus we have to determine whether the proposed change has
> substantially more support than opposition in the community active in the
> discussion. (56 PPML posts: 6 for, 3 against)(106 people in the room of
> the Public Policy Meeting: 27 for, 11 against) We also have to consider
> that the specific concerns expressed have been considered. This last part
> is one of the reasons I voted against this proposal.
> 
> I think that 2012-3 breaks new ground in that it has no technical need as
> a foundation. This proposal allows a part of the community to do something
> they want to do, rather than technically need to do. Bear with me here
> before this splinters into days of argument. To be clear, I am not
> suggesting this should not be allowed, rather question what is the
> appropriate level of dissent or support for such a change.
> 

+1

(Though I also oppose the policy based on my belief that it is overall harmful
to ARIN's mission in that it moves us away from a resource stewardship role
and towards a function more closely resembling an auction house or transaction
clearing house).

> Some policy debates have to move past the dissenting opinions because the
> implications may outweigh the result of not making a change. If, however
> there are no technical downside, then similar consideration has to be
> given to both opinions of the community. One cannot dismiss the personal
> opinions of those who object to the change when those in dissent are
> supposed to accept the opinions of those who want it for no other reason.
> We need a serious debate over what is the appropriate level of support for
> a non-technical proposal.
> 
> Because of this, I do not feel that appropriate consensus has been reached
> and this proposal warrants further discussion. Not only for the merits of
> the proposal itself but for the implications that this change has on how
> we are referred to as the "Internet Technical Community".
> 
+1

It also needs further discussion on whether ARIN is to remain in its role
as a resource steward or whether we really want to move it towards being
merely a registry/registrar as practiced in the DNS world.

As I see it, paid transfers have generally be a bad thing from a resource
stewardship perspective. I see that we have a growing body of exceptional
cases related primarily to bankruptcies and strange ideas of perceived
values of particular numbers or IPv4 numbers due to scarcity.  I recognize
that because of the scarcity of IPv4 numbers, overall, the community is
harmed (or at least apparently harmed) more in the short term by the lack
of available IPv4 resources than by the paid transfers. There is a sound
technical basis in this argument and it is a genuine technical need of the
community.

I see no such technical need for ASNs at this time or in the immediate
future.

Therefore, I joined Dan in voting against this proposal and I am still
in opposition to it.

Owen

> Dan Alexander
> AC Member
> 
> 
> On 4/30/12 1:19 PM, "ARIN" <info at arin.net> wrote:
> 
>> The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) met on 25 April 2012 and decided to
>> send the following draft policy to last call:
>> 
>>  ARIN-2012-3: ASN Transfers
>> 
>> Feedback is encouraged during the last call period. All comments should
>> be provided to the Public Policy Mailing List. Last call for 2012-3 will
>> expire on 14 May 2012. After last call the AC will conduct their last
>> call review.
>> 
>> The draft policy text is below and available at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/
>> 
>> The ARIN Policy Development Process is available at:
>> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>> 
>> Regards,
>> 
>> Communications and Member Services
>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>> 
>> 
>> ## * ##
>> 
>> 
>> Draft Policy ARIN-2012-3
>> ASN Transfers
>> 
>> Date: 14 March 2012
>> 
>> Policy statement:
>> 
>> In NRPM 8.3, replace "IPv4 number resources" with "IPv4 number resources
>> and ASNs".
>> 
>> Rationale:
>> 
>> There are legitimate use cases for transferring ASNs, and no significant
>> downsides (identified to date) of allowing it.
>> 
>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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.