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

[Jimmy Hess]

On 5/8/12, Larry Ash <lar at mwtcorp.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 08 May 2012 08:27:25 -0500
> The problem, as I see it, is that their seems to be two fundamental
> approaches. The "Why's"
> and the "Why not's".

"Why Not"  is not good enough.   All policies require a rationale.
All policies have a cost to implement.   Time and resources of ARIN
and ARIN staff have to be consumed by every policy, that could be more
usefully spent on other work.  Every transfer to specified recipients
request.   Every paragraph added to the NRPM.  And indeed, unknown
costs to the community in the form of unknown risks of creating a
market.

There must be a significantly better reason to add policy text and
additional ARIN functions
that require new policies, procedures, and new work for ARIN,  than
"Because we can".   ARIN's  role is stewardship of resources,  not
abrogation of stewardship to markets.

No bonafide use case for ASN transfer to specified recipients has
really been shown in this discussion.

There is not compelling reason shown to add ASN transfers  to
specified recipients as an  ARIN function,  consuming ARIN resources
and ARIN members'  cash,  like there is with IPv4 transfers.


> The "why's" want some concrete reason why this is necessary. An ASN is a
> value in a router that isn't public facing. The main reason to transfer an ASN would be
> to preserve existing customer configurations downstream from an organization. The

Transfer in case of merger/acquisition of another organization's
network is covered by existing policy,  and does not require transfer
to specified recipients.

> unknown  risk of making a "market" for ASN's seem unnecessary. The "why's" demand a reason  why this risk is necessary.

> The "why not's" seem to view this as a market opportunity so they they can  participate
> in the market either buying, selling, or brokering in ASN's or more  fundamentally why not.
> Whatever the overriding purpose they see no obvious reason to oppose this so  they
> require the "why's" to give them a reason why not.
>
> At this point neither side has been able to explain either why or why not.
> This seems more fundamental than the discussion at hand and probably all we
>
> can hope for is that each side with try and understand the other. Maybe with that
> understanding a consensuses can be reached.


--
-JH