[arin-ppml] ARIN Draft Policy 2014-2 Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip Language
owen at delong.com
Mon May 5 19:41:09 EDT 2014
Given that the existing wording definitely had a lack of consensus and that there has been no proposed wording to address the issues raised by the community, unless someone has a proposal for wording that is more likely to gain consensus, I am inclined to support Bill’s idea of abandoning this proposal.
Reiterating support for the existing failed language is not useful in this context. The community as a whole clearly did not achieve consensus on this language.
There has been very limited support expressed for the idea in general.
On May 5, 2014, at 4:23 PM, <sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com> <sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com> wrote:
> 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
> Now is your opportunity to convince the community that this a worthwhile
> effort....or not.
> 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
> 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:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
More information about the ARIN-PPML