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

[Jeffrey Lyon]

On Thu, May 3, 2012 at 3:45 PM, Blecker, Christoph
<christoph.blecker at ubc.ca> wrote:
> Simple version: I do not support this policy as written.
>
> Longer version:
> I have yet to see or fully understand a situation where a specified ASN transfer is either technically required or even preferable, outside of a network engineer just wanting a particular number. The way I currently understand it, the "vanity licence plate" metaphor that some have been using seems pretty accurate. This opens the door for assigning artificial value to a number that not many people outside network engineers know or should know about. I would support this change if there was a reasonable technical need behind it (and perhaps somebody can enlighten me).
>
> At ARIN XXIX, there was also been some talk around bankruptcy courts and not having a transfer policy around ASNs for that. Perhaps a more elegant solution would be to create a new 8.x policy to specifically address transferring resources from entities in bankruptcy, similar to the way 8.2 addresses M&As. That way, ARIN has more guidance to what the community thinks, and judges involved have specific recommendations from us in how the community views these resources.
>
> Overall, I think more discussion is needed.
>
> Cheers,
> Christoph
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of ARIN
> Sent: April-30-12 10:19 AM
> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
> Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN-2012-3: ASN Transfers - Last Call
>
> 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.

The problem with many proposals, this one especially, is that every
situation is always looked at from the perspective of "is this
technically required." I would argue that many look at every situation
from the perspective of "would I benefit from this?" To be fair, most
here do align "I benefit" with stewardship, but herein lies the
problem.

PPML, policy meetings, etc. are highly dominated by "old school"
engineers. I vote at ARIN elections, and consistently see speeches
that detail how long each candidate has been supporting stewardship,
how they helped pioneer the internet, and so forth. That's great, we
love you for it and you command much respect from your peers. The
problem that we now face in 2012 is that the community is
substantially larger and more diverse than the representation within
the ARIN policy community. Some quick observations:

- PPML is predominately engineers, most of whom are not involved in
financial decision making for their organizations (or are from
non-profits)
- Attendees at ARIN meetings are predominately the same folks.
- Given these observations, i'm willing to assume that those who
actually vote at ARIN elections are mostly the same crew of old school
policy makers.

What i'm attempting to argue is that this does not have to be a zero
sum game. Just because this policy could benefit the management, bean
counters, and marketing gurus of any given commercial enterprise does
not mean that stewardship has been abandoned, that ARIN is becoming
commercialized, or that we're somehow setting a bad precedent. Many
could benefit substantially from the transferability of ASN's, its
just unfortunately that the ultimate decision to strike down this
proposal are not the same group of folks.

Reiterating my position of "Strongly Support,"
-- 
Jeffrey A. Lyon, CISSP
President | (757) 304-0668
http://www.blacklotus.net
Black Lotus Communications