<html><body bgcolor="#FFFFFF"><div><br><br>Sent from my iPad</div><div><br>On May 23, 2011, at 17:00, "Mike Burns" <<a href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com">mike@nationwideinc.com</a>> wrote:<br><br></div><div></div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Hi Scott,</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">In the context of this proposal, may I ask what
would happen if APNIC accepted a transfer of ARIN legacy addresses and updated
their Whois, even if ARIN refused the transfer?</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>Uncertain at best... However, I'd be _VERY_ surprised if APNIC would do such<div>a thing without consent from ARIN and even more surprised if they did not</div><div>reverse it upon request from ARIN.</div><div><br></div><div>I believe it would be a violation of the agreements in place among the NRO.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">(Because the language of the proposal pointedly
excludes APNIC, if their current policy remains in place.)</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">I know that ARIN could revoke and
reissue.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">How is inter-RIR conflict resolved, is there a
process in place for conflict resolution?</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>So far, it's resolved by discussion among the RIRs through the NRO and so far,</div><div>that has been successful.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Do the RIRs generally have compatible needs-based
transfer policies, I mean I know APNIC doesn't, but do the other RIRs have the
same 3-month window, for example?</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>The 3-month window wouldn't be a requirement for a "compatible" needs-basis.</div><div>The other RIRs all have some form of needs basis so far. Only APNIC has abandoned</div><div>needs-basis altogether.</div><div><br></div><div>I believe that the other RIRs needs-basis policies would all be sufficient to meet</div><div>the likely interpretation of "compatible needs-basis transfer policy" except for</div><div>at least one RIR that has no transfer policy as yet.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Is a difference in the needs window enough to
prevent a transfer?</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>No, it would require the absence of a needs-basis altogether or some other</div><div>radical difference in the meaning of "needs-basis" such as "Need can be</div><div>satisfied by requiring an address for each goat on the given rancher's farm."</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">If so, do we need to consider other RIRs and
the impact on inter-RIR transfers when we consider proposals to change the needs
window?</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I doubt it. I expect such windows and similar issues to be considered localized</div><div>phenomena and one of the reasons that we have RIRs instead of a single</div><div>global IR.</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">What if RIPE joins APNIC with a requirement like a
/24 maximum, is that something that makes the needs requirements
incompatible?</font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I wouldn't think so at least from ARIN's perspective, but, the point of the "as long as both</div><div>RIRs agree and" part of the phrase is that it is up to the RIR staff to exercise discretion</div><div>in interpreting to what extent variations in local policy can be accommodated and still</div><div>considered compatible.</div><div><br><blockquote type="cite"><div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">I guess I am asking for a more detailed definition
of the word "compatible" in your proposed language.</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial">Maybe that language is extraneous, as you are
already requiring both RIRs to agree?</font></div>
<div><font size="2" face="Arial"></font></div></div></blockquote><div><br></div>I don't think it is extraneous as I believe it provides a level of guidance to staff. I believe that</div><div>providing more specific guidance to staff in light of the amount of effort ongoing to change</div><div>various policies around the world would be difficult and ill-advised. I believe that providing</div><div>less guidance to staff would be too ambiguous and lead to unfortunate results. Even the</div><div>current wording may have unfortunate results, but, I think it is better than the likely</div><div>unfortunate results from current policy.</div><div><br></div><div>Owen</div><div><br></div><div><blockquote type="cite"><div>
</div></blockquote></div></body></html>