[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification

David Huberman David.Huberman at microsoft.com
Mon Sep 22 13:05:33 EDT 2014

John, we're on the same page here, I think.

> I am not for or against the present approach, but want to understand 
> the community thinking on why enterprises should be prevented from doing 
> transfers and subject to architecture-specific constraints in order to 
> receive approval.  

No one participating in the RIR system should be prevented from doing any
bona fide transfer.  In the 8.3 world, network operators must be free to buy
and sell IP addresses as it fits their business plans.  If we can agree on that, can
we agree that any mechanism which forces a company to do multiple transfers
or buy multiple blocks is a disservice to the community?

John asked:
> If there are to be constraints on transfers to new entrants, I will ask
> the same question as above - is it better than they be based on directly
> evidenced need (equipment and customers in hand) or based on speculative 
> assertions of future need?  ARIN staff can verify a forward-looking plan,
> but in the end, it is verification of intentions rather present state of
> affairs, and that limits ability to anchor approvals to verifiable data.

Speculative assertions on future need, as ARIN is not equipped and not in a position
to question the forecasts made by a company. That's not the job ARIN was given
by the IETF, and I ask that we as a policy community stop trying to be amateur

John wrote:

> Do you see (per the proposal intent) any opportunities for simplification of present
> transfer policy, either by changing the existing proposal or otherwise?

I'm not going to say yes or not, wrt 2014-20.  I don't know yet.  I think Jason and I disagree
on the heart of the matter (as referenced in a parallel part of this thread), but we're just
two people. 

What do others think?

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list