Ted,<div><br></div><div>I think you're misreading the Board on this one. I think they learned a hard lesson about invoking the emergency PDP, and are very reluctant to take the lead on policy at this point. I also have seen no evidence of any Board members desiring to block community-supported policy.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It sounds like you also may be misreading the community consensus around transfers. For example, at the just-completed PPM in San Juan, there was a poll on the subject of support for "in principle, an interregional transfer policy", where "41 were in favor and one against." (<a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVII/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_6">https://www.arin.net/participate/meetings/reports/ARIN_XXVII/ppm1_transcript.html#anchor_6</a>)</div>
<div><br></div><div>OTOH, it is also clear that the ARIN community supports restrictions on transfers, particularly around maintaining a needs basis. So if you have any specific suggestions for how NRPM 8.3 could be improved, I would encourage you to propose text here on PPML, and if a suggestion has support, submit it as a policy proposal. IMO one good source of ideas would be the original 2008-2 transfer policy.</div>
<div><br></div><div>In addition, we had some good discussion in San Juan about whether certain restrictions in 8.3 were proving unnecessary and might even be harmful. As a result of that discussion, I suspect you will see some policy proposals to relax certain restrictions, such as moving from a 12-month need justification period to 24 months, and to relax the "as a single aggregate" restriction. If anyone has thoughts on either of those changes, I'd like to hear them.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Scott</div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Ted Mittelstaedt <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:tedm@ipinc.net">tedm@ipinc.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
OK so with all that said and everyone's memory refreshed,<br>
<br>
where do we go now?<br>
<br>
Obviously even if community consensus was to eliminate the transfer<br>
section of the NRPM, we would not be able to do it - the Board would<br>
force another policy. We as a community need to accept that when it<br>
comes to this issue we are in a dictatorship.<br>
<br>
So how do we mitigate the worst of the abuses? What can we get<br>
through that the Board isn't going to block?<br>
<br>
I just wish the Board and their representatives would stop claiming<br>
they had community support for transfers - after all we aren't stupid.<br>
They would serve the community much more by telling us precisely what<br>
they will and won't allow to happen in this area.<br><font color="#888888">
<br>
Ted</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
On 4/25/2011 11:31 AM, Bill Darte wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
And I will remind you that 2008-6 which passed was intended by the<br>
author (me) and community to be a 'wait until runout' or very near that<br>
their by emergency powers, for implementation which would have allowed<br>
the AC and community to work on crafting more explicit improvements to<br>
it. And, this 2008-6 was to be a stop-gap measure and sunsetted. (full<br>
text AND rationale below).<br>
<br>
The Board decided to use their emergency powers immediately to put<br>
something more to their liking in place immediately.<br>
<br>
And note that and RSA was required to play....<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Draft Policy 2008-6<br>
Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses<br>
<br>
Author: Bill Darte<br>
<br>
Date: 24 January 2009<br>
<br>
Policy statement:<br>
<br>
8.4 Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses<br>
<br>
For a period of 3 years from policy implementation, authorized resource<br>
holders served by ARIN may designate a recipient for number resources<br>
they<br>
release to ARIN.<br>
<br>
Number resources may only be received under RSA in the exact amount<br>
which can be justified under ARIN resource-allocation policies.<br>
<br>
Rationale:<br>
<br>
In order for ARIN to fulfill its mission and to facilitate a continuing<br>
supply of IPv4 address resources to its service community when ARIN<br>
resources are no longer adequate, and to preserve the integrity of<br>
documentation and ARIN services for those resources, this policy may be<br>
implemented. Its intent is to preserve the current tradition of<br>
need-based allocation/assignments for those still needing IPv4 resources<br>
during a transition period as the industry adopts IPv6. This policy is<br>
not intended to create a 'market' for such transfers and does not<br>
introduce or condone the monetization of address resources or a view of<br>
addresses as property. It does recognize that organizations making<br>
available unused or no longer needed address resources may incur certain<br>
costs that might be compensated by those acquiring the resources. This<br>
policy is intended to be transient and light-weight and does not<br>
encourage a sustained or continuing role for IPv4, but rather helps to<br>
mitigate a transitional crisis that may emerge while the industry adopts<br>
IPv6 in accordance with the recommendation of ARIN's Board of Trustees.<br>
<br>
Timetable for implementation:<br>
<br>
This policy, once ratified by the ARIN Board of Trustees, would be<br>
implemented when either the free-pool of IANA addresses is exhausted or<br>
IPv4 address resources in the ARIN Region reach a threshold of scarcity<br>
recognized by the ARIN Board of Trustees as requiring this policy<br>
implementation.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a><br>
[mailto:<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a>] On Behalf Of Leo Bicknell<br>
Sent: Monday, April 25, 2011 12:48 PM<br>
To: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Curious about consensus<br>
<br>
In a message written on Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 10:33:22AM<br>
-0700, Leo Bicknell wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
Perhaps this is why the Board should think harder about using the<br>
Emergency PDP and trying to draft policy on their own. If<br>
</blockquote>
you recall,<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
when the Board took the action that created 2009-1 we were<br>
</blockquote>
less than<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
two months from the community considering 2008-2 at a<br>
</blockquote>
meeting where it<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
likely would have passed.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Scott Liebrand reminded me of a part of history had I wanted<br>
to forget. At the fall 2008 meeting 2008-2 was abandoned in<br>
favor of the AC originated, and even more ill conceived<br>
2008-6 policy. That was the one that was coming up at the<br>
2009 spring meeting.<br>
<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
In this case I don't hold the AC much responsible though, the Board<br>
put them between a rock and a hard place basically telling them to<br>
either rubber stamp it, or if they took their time with it<br>
</blockquote>
the Board<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
would just continue to go around them in the Emergency PDP.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
Which means I must retract this statement. The AC's choice<br>
to go from 2008-2 (which, admittedly needed work) to the<br>
remarkably requirement-free policy 2008-6 likely helped push<br>
the Board to take action under the Emergency PDP. Still, I<br>
think the Board could have and should have drawn more<br>
guidence from 2008-2.<br>
<br>
My point though still stands, these things were discussed in<br>
great detail by the AC over a period of several years, and at<br>
the end of the day the BoT and AC ended up in this mess where<br>
they threw the baby out with the bath water. I think<br>
everyone involved should be ashamed.<br>
<br>
--<br>
Leo Bicknell - <a href="mailto:bicknell@ufp.org" target="_blank">bicknell@ufp.org</a> - CCIE 3440<br>
PGP keys at <a href="http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/" target="_blank">http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/</a><br>
<br>
</blockquote>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
PPML<br>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br>
<a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
Please contact <a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>