[arin-ppml] 2014-2 8.4 Anti-flip Language

[David Farmer]

On 2/23/14, 14:38 , Steven Ryerse wrote:
> This is an example of how policies penalize legitimate organizations
> needing to do legitimate transfers.  In my opinion the Polices have
> swung so far towards preventing abuse they impact legitimate transfers.
> In the publicly traded company world, each quarter is like a year and a
> year is like 4 years to them since they have to publish their quarterly
> results 4 times a year.  For them a year is an eternity.  Also, the
> Internet itself has allowed business functions that once took months or
> years to take days or weeks which is todays reality.  Some of y’all
> think 12 months or even 18 months is a short time but that doesn’t align
> with the reality of today’s business world that the Internet has helped
> foster.
>
> Although I don’t like abuse either, I am definitely AGAINST raising the
> hold period to be longer than a year.  If it has to be a year then at
> minimum, there should be a procedure defined in the policy that an
> organization can appeal to the ARIN CFO (or whoever) to get an exception
> for a shorter timeframe – even as short as 30 days.  If what the
> organization is doing is legitimate and the ARIN CFO will approve it,
> then the 12 month hold rule should be waived.  My 2 cents.


I've been thinking about this maybe the restrictions for anti-flipping 
don't belong in section 8 at all.  Maybe they belong in section 4 as 
they are intended to protect the ARIN IPv4 free pool.

The restrictions were needed because we enabled Inter-RIR transfers, so 
they were included with the Inter-RIR transfer policy.  I'm beginning to 
think this may have been a mistake.  Tactically we allowing IPv4 
allocations to remain liberal and restricting transfers.

It may be more effective to be more restrictive on the allocation of 
IPv4 resources and more liberal on transfers.

I think part of the reason we didn't do this is that we were trying to 
minimize the changes to allocation policy because of run-out and not 
wanting to have uncertain effects on the end-game of run-out.  So we've 
placed the restrictions on transfers as the new policy items rather than 
the the allocation policies.

I'll note, that several people have advocated liberalizing transfer 
policies for a while now.  However, they have not also advocated the 
accompanying restrictions that would be necessary on the allocation 
policy side.  I'll also note, that at this point it may be to late for 
this type of radical change.


-- 
================================================
David Farmer               Email: farmer at umn.edu
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE     Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029  Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================