[arin-ppml] Seeking Comments - Draft Policy ARIN-2025-3: Change Section 9 Out-of-Region Use Minimum Criteria

[Eric C. Landgraf]

On Jun 01 11:05, Eddie Stauble via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> With input at ARIN 57 in Louisville, I think it is time to amend the
> proposal to exclude out of region usage to get IPv4 from the waiting list.  
> 
> Here are a couple of options:
> 
> Out of Region usage justification can only be used to acquire IPv4 addresses
> from the transfer market.  Any organization on the Waiting List at the time
> this policy is implemented will be grandfathered-in.
> 
> Or, though a bit wordy, a bit more specific:
> 
> Out of Region usage justification may not be used to receive IPv4 addresses
> from the ARIN Waitlist (4.1.8), Micro-allocation pool (4.4) or Dedicated
> IPv4 Allocation to facilitate IPv6 Deployment (4.10).  Any organization on
> the Waiting List at the time this policy is implemented will be
> grandfathered-in.
> 
> The first option is shorter, and does not specifically refer to ARIN reserve
> pools, which could change.  The second option does not include the term
> "transfer market".  That term does not appear in the NRPM, and directly
> mentions the waiting list.

How about we add text to each of 4.1.8, 4.4, and 4.10 that says, in
essence "IPv4 resources obtained this way are prohibited from use
out-of-region for 5 years"? We already have a proposal to stipulate 4.10
be used in-region, so provided that is adopted, we need only add this
stipulation to 4.4 and 4.1.8

The benefit of a 5-year window is that it helps prevent gaming the
system, but for organizations whose business reality has changed they
need only meet the /24 in-region requirement at that future point. And I
think those restrictions will be clearer in the relevant sections than
in section 9. The downside is that it is only implicit that only
transfers may be used out-of-region immediately.

Regarding your comment on the lack of use of "Transfer market" elsewhere
in the NRPM, it may be appropriate to add a section 2 definition of
"Transfer"; I think this should be a separate proposal. I would hesitate
to add a definition of "Transfer Market", though.

	Eric C. Landgraf
	Virginia Tech