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

[sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com]

I support the policy in that it helps companies in the region and I do
not see any harm to any entities in the region. The problem David
Huberman is trying to solve is that there are IP's being used out of
region, and we all know out of region use has lots of geo-location
issues, and for some companies, routing issues, and he needs these IP's
to be registered in the region they are used. Coupled with the fact
there would not be any IP's available to his company from the free pool
for the next 12 months, there is no harm.  

The only thing we don't know is whether this is a one-off problem, or
whether other companies have the same issue.  I would think other
companies have the same problem but are not commenting.  I suspect the
people at ARIN33 felt the problem should be solved, but that it didn't
apply to them so they are not being as vocal now.  The shepherds could
contact companies with a profile similar to David Huberman's and see if
it would be of service to them. 

It would seem that the more freedom there is to transfer IP's between
registries, the easier it will be to conduct business globally, and the
more critical the role of the RIR in the future.  

It is not a harmful policy.

Sandra Brown
IPv4 Market Group.


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.