[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN 2014-2 Improving Anti-Flip Language

Bill Darte billdarte at gmail.com
Mon Apr 21 14:40:02 EDT 2014


Niki,

Thank you for your feedback.  But, I am unsure how you are relating the
existence of a continuing supply of addresses in ARIN's free pool to the
problem statement....which is...."Current policy prevents an organization
that receives BLOCK A in the previous 12 months from transferring to their
own organization in another RIR a different block, BLOCK B, though it may
have been issued years ago."

Perhaps you could clarify your position.....thanks again.

bd





On Sun, Apr 20, 2014 at 8:46 PM, xiaofan yang <nikiyangxf at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hi Bill,
>
> Thanks for your update and summary.
>
> My answer is to tick option 1 with answer of NO. As ARIN still has the
> free pool, there is no need to further discuss this proposal.  I would like
> to suggest to abandon this draft.
>
> Regards,
>
> Niki
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Apr 19, 2014 at 8:03 PM, Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The Draft Policy ARIN 2014-2 Improving Anti-Flip Language was discussed
>> at the ARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting in Chicago last week and while there
>> was no consensus for the Draft using current language, the community
>> encouraged the AC to continue work on it as there was sympathy for the
>> problem statement. https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2014_2.html
>>
>> Draft Policy Issue:
>> Simply, the author wishes the Anti-Flip language currently used in the
>> NRPM to be relaxed, allowing an Inter-RIR transfer within their own
>> organization of previously existing addresses....though they may have
>> received a new allocation or assignment within the last 12 months.
>>
>> Current draft language states that the organization may do such a
>> transfer, but may not use the actual addresses which were received from
>> ARIN (or through transfer) in the previous 12 months.  But they could
>> therefore transfer other resources holdings.
>>
>> Request for feedback:
>> In order to further this discussion and gain a consensus, I would like to
>> once again ask the community to speak in favor or against this Draft Policy
>> so that it may be presented and discussed at our next Public Policy
>> Consultation at NANOG in June.
>>
>> 1. Yes or No.  Should the community relax existing policy which attempts
>> to limit the transfer of ARIN resources out of region, in order to allow an
>> organization flexibility to move address blocks to another portion of their
>> own organization in another region, even though they might have received
>> different addresses within ARIN in the last 12 months?
>>
>> (Note current policy would still restrict availability of new addresses
>> to the organization for a period of 12 months after the transfer and is not
>> being changed by this draft).
>>
>> 2.  If YES above, are there any other qualifications or limits that
>> should be imposed on the resources transferred or the organization?
>>
>> (Note that a vote of NO to question #1 would essentially ask the Advisory
>> Council to abandon this draft policy leaving existing policy in place.)
>>
>> Thanks to all who continue to work within the community to exercise their
>> right and duty to craft appropriate policy guiding ARIN's important role in
>> Internet number resource management.
>>
>> Bill Darte
>> Policy Shepherd for 2014-2
>> ARIN Advisory Council
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20140421/7f40a700/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list