[arin-ppml] Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M&A

[Fernando Frediani]

Right Bill, my point was more in regards to the Global Policy Process 
and what would take to pass such a hypothetical one. You may have a 
point about should it be necessary or not and that would be another 
interesting discussion to have.

The main reason I oppose to IPv6 Inter-RIR transfers though is not this 
one but the other stated in my previous message.

Best regards
Fernando

On 14/10/2019 17:39, William Herrin wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:17 AM Fernando Frediani 
> <fhfrediani at gmail.com <mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 14/10/2019 14:49, Owen DeLong wrote:
>     > You have the control relationship backwards. IANA is a function
>     performed by  PTI under a contract controlled by the NRO (Number
>     Resource Organization). The NRO is the five RIRs and they tell
>     ICANN how to perform the IANA function, not the other way around.
>
>     That's correct, however for a Global Policy to pass it takes quiet a
>     while on all five RIRs and in some of them proposals with similar
>     content have not reached consensus yet or were denied by a
>     significant
>     portion of the participants therefore I doubt this would be different
>     for a Global Policy with this intent.
>
>
> Hi Fernando,
>
> IPv4 transfers are not a global policy either, or if they've become 
> one they didn't start that way. They started as individual RIRs 
> declaring the conditions under which they would offer or accept 
> transfers with other RIRs. Where both RIRs' conditions are met, the 
> transfer can happen.
>
> It's not obvious to me why we'd need to do anything more coordinated here.
>
> Regards,
> Bill Herrin
>
> -- 
> William Herrin
> bill at herrin.us <mailto:bill at herrin.us>
> https://bill.herrin.us/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20191014/091bb569/attachment.htm>