[arin-ppml] ARIN Draft Policy 2014-2 Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip Language

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Mon May 5 17:48:15 EDT 2014

I think David is right here: the community has asked us to keep working on
this and come up with a better draft.

My own personal opinion (not speaking for anyone else) is:

1. YES, it should be perfectly acceptable for an organization to transfer
their IP space to the RIR responsible for the region in which they are
using it.

2. If an organization has received address space from the ARIN free pool
within the last 12 months, they should still be able to transfer address
space to their own subsidiaries.

Bill Herrin makes a good point: many of the ideas we've been discussing in
the context of 2014-2 are really a more general relaxation of transfer
policies, and probably should be considered separately.  However, I think
that statement (#2 above) represents something pretty close to the
consensus I heard in Chicago.  Given that it also addresses the 2014-2
problem statement, I think that might be the direction we need to be going
here.  Thoughts?


On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 1:00 PM, Bill Darte <billdarte at gmail.com> wrote:

> Yes....a significant vote in favor or continuing to work on it...but I
> have asked...now repeatedly for support for the language or suggested
> improvements to the language..... nada.
> I do not wish to abandon, I wish to create good policy that the community
> supports.
> I await the community's affirmation that this draft is worthy of
> continuing support.
> bd
> On Mon, May 5, 2014 at 2:32 PM, David Huberman <
> David.Huberman at microsoft.com> wrote:
>> From the ARIN 33 meeting notes:
>> "At the end of discussion, the moderator asked for the following straw
>> poll (remote participants were invited to participate). Poll results were
>> provided to the Advisory Council for use in its deliberations.
>> Straw poll for/against continuing work on the proposal:
>> - Total attendees/remote participants: 103
>> - In favor: 36
>> - Against: 2 "
>> The participating members of this community spoke widely in favor of
>> working on this.  Abandoning this seems contrary to the explicit wishes of
>> the community's participants
>> David R Huberman
>> Microsoft Corporation
>> Senior IT/OPS Program Manager (GFS)
>> From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On
>> Behalf Of Bill Darte
>> Sent: Monday, May 5, 2014 12:15 PM
>> To: arin-ppml at arin.net
>> Subject: [arin-ppml] ARIN Draft Policy 2014-2 Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip
>> Language
>> Should we abandon this Draft?
>> After the Chicago Public Policy Meeting, based upon the community's
>> suggestion that the AC continue to work on this Draft.  I sent an email to
>> PPML asking for support or opposition to this Draft and received just 2
>> responses....both in opposition.
>> I reiterate that PPML message below and once again ask for your support
>> or opposition. Failing to generate greater support for this Draft and given
>> that the AC has approximately 20 proposals and drafts on its docket.....I
>> plan to make a motion at the next AC monthly meeting recommending
>> abandoning this Draft Policy for lack of community support......
>> Now is your opportunity to convince the community that this a worthwhile
>> effort....or not.
>> Thanks,
>> Bill Darte
>> AC Shepherd for 2014-2
>> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20140505/0baa4115/attachment.html>

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list