[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M&A - Seeking Community Comments / 2019-04

[Fernando Frediani]

On 17/07/2019 16:40, Job Snijders wrote:
> (recognising that this thread is less and less about M&A and more 
> and more about 2019-04. I apologize for having contributed to a 
> conflation of the two policy proposals. I hope the AC will 
> recontextualize these comments)

I hope this is not an attempt to take the AC to disregard the most 
comments contrary to IPv6 transfers and only take into account those 
manifested in favor in order to pass this proposal. Perhaps I just 
misunderstood and AC will take all comments into consideration.

Kind regards
Fernando

>
> On Tue, Jul 16, 2019 at 12:39:54PM -0400, Joe Provo wrote:
> > > 1/ Currently the ARIN RPKI TAL is measurably less deployed than any of
> > [snip]
> >
> > I fail to understand bringing this back into it. You were flatly asked
> > when the TAL issue is resolved, would this policy still be needed and
> > your answer was yes, because of desire [citation
> > https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2019-April/066381.html].
>
> My intention was to bring up as a real example where a RIR's policy 
> leads to tangible operational issues. In the email you reference, my 
> observation is that that RIRs evolve over time and may perform 
> excellent, or perhaps regress. This is the nature of any organization 
> - staff, board, and zeitgeist all change over time. Heck, even the 
> legal environment or risk profile can change, forcing a RIR's hand to 
> make certain choices; this in turn influences the choices operators 
> may make.
>
> Since a RIR's 'performance' (for lack of better wording) is not fixed 
> but rather is a variable, I think the concept of a “lock-in” may have 
> downsides in some scenarios.
>
> > Registry shopping is counter to ICP-2 and I assert a Bad Thing for 
> the Internet as a whole.
>
> Can I ask you to explain to me in layman’s words how or where ICP-2 
> suggests choice of RIR (transfers / mobility) explicitly was not a goal?
>
> Even if resource lock-in was an objective, isn't strange that the 
> implementation of that idea depends on a single emerging technology 
> (IPv6), where a resource transfer blockage is used as the enforcement 
> mechanism to prevent "registry shopping"? Do we accept as an extreme 
> outcome that ARIN maybe one day mostly is an IPv6 resource registry 
> (meaning the other types of Number Resources are managed elsewhere)?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Job
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-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:
> https://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/20190717/f22c8582/attachment.htm>