[arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility

[Owen DeLong]

> On Jan 23, 2017, at 8:23 PM, Kevin Blumberg <kevinb at thewire.ca> wrote:
> 
> Joe,
> 
> The asymmetric transfers you mention below are allowed from my understanding.
> 
> RIR<->RIR->NIR

It is my understanding that APNIC policy allows these transfers where it is RIR<->APNIC->NIR.

I do not know of any other circumstances where such asymmetric policies are allowed.

To the best of my knowledge, the current only NIRs implementing such asymmetric policy are CNNIC and VNNIC.

> 
> I remember this being discussed at the last ARIN meeting. If staff could confirm my basic diagram that would be appreciated.
> 
> I believe at least for LACNIC and AFRNIC there should be a waiver if requested, not a removal of reciprocity from the entire section.

I would not oppose (though, neither would I support) a temporary waiver, but I would want to see either hard criteria or a hard deadline when the waiver expires.

I strongly oppose removing the reciprocity from policy for the reasons previously stated.

Owen

> 
> Kevin Blumberg
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: ARIN-PPML [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net] On Behalf Of Joe Provo
> Sent: Sunday, January 22, 2017 12:29 PM
> To: ARIN-PPML List <arin-ppml at arin.net>
> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN Response to AFRINIC on Policy compatibility
> 
> On Fri, Jan 20, 2017 at 05:29:29PM -0800, Owen DeLong wrote:
>> The reciprocity requirement merely requires that the policies ALLOW 
>> transfers in both directions.
>> 
>> I do not believe that allowing transfers to an RIR which will not 
>> allow transfers out is reasonable or prudent and this belief has 
>> nothing to do with maintenance or protection of a free pool. If we 
>> will allow transfers between RIRs, then the policies by which they are 
>> allowed should be fair, balanced, and symmetrical. This does not mean 
>> that I expect the ratio of actual transfers to be balanced or 
>> symmetrical, merely that the policies under which they are conducted 
>> should be.
> 
> I'm with Owen on this. 
> 
> For folks who think asymmetric transfers in this context (co-operating RIRs) is OK, how do they feel regarding such transfers in other contexts?  I'm specifically thinking of asymmetric lock-in transfers to certain NIRs who require resources used within their legislative boundary be in their registry. I'm concerned that even a conditional door open here sets a precedent for enabling such reduced resource fluidity. 
> 
> IMNSHO, that way leads to enabling Balkanization.
> 
> Cheers!
> 
> Joe
> 
> --
> Posted from my personal account - see X-Disclaimer header.
> Joe Provo / Gweep / Earthling
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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.
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> 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.