<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 3.2//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META NAME="Generator" CONTENT="MS Exchange Server version 6.5.7654.12">
<TITLE>RE: [arin-ppml] Integrating Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 into NRPM 8.3</TITLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY>
<!-- Converted from text/plain format -->
<P><FONT SIZE=2>The word you say is subjective...'compatible'... in the DP is interpreted by..<BR>
'that exercise Internet stewardship consistent with the values expressed in RFC2050'<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
-----Original Message-----<BR>
From: arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net on behalf of Mike Burns<BR>
Sent: Thu 5/26/2011 4:28 PM<BR>
To: Chris Grundemann<BR>
Cc: ARIN-PPML List<BR>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Integrating Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 into NRPM 8.3<BR>
<BR>
> What is to be gained by including that language, except to engender<BR>
> Inter-RIR conflict?<BR>
> The wording already includes both RIRs to approve the transfer.<BR>
> There is no definition in the policy or elsewhere in the NRPM of<BR>
> "compatible" needs policies.<BR>
> I don't see the point in including it.<BR>
<BR>
The point of that statement is to signal the intentions of the ARIN<BR>
community both to ARIN staff and to other RIRs. It provides guidance<BR>
to ARIN staff that they should not agree to any transfer that does not<BR>
include needs-based policy on the recipient end. It also ensures that<BR>
recipients in other regions will not be surprised when a transfer is<BR>
denied for lack of said needs-based policies. The point, in short, is<BR>
clarity and transparency.<BR>
<BR>
Cheers,<BR>
~Chris<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
Hi Chris,<BR>
<BR>
But how clear is it exactly?<BR>
Do you mean it to signal that *any* needs test is compatible?<BR>
If that is the intent, then I think the language can be clearer.<BR>
If you want clarity, then using a subjective word like "compatible" which is<BR>
undefined in the proposal is sub-optimal.<BR>
Since its definition and application is left to ARIN staff, and ARIN staff<BR>
is required to decide on transfer approval anyway, I don't see any great<BR>
clarity or transparency.<BR>
What I do see reads like a political statement added onto a policy proposal,<BR>
to no real effect except to exacerbate inter-RIR tensions.<BR>
What better way to incite the APNIC stewards to unilaterally decide to<BR>
accept transfers into their region of legacy space with no RSA in place?<BR>
This is currently a lacuna in policy awaiting a test case, as far as I know.<BR>
<BR>
It's not like there are hundreds of different transfer policies, I'm sure<BR>
those requesting inter-RIR transfers will be aware of the current policies<BR>
without brandishing our disdain for their version of stewardship in<BR>
additional and functionally inoperative language.<BR>
<BR>
Regards,<BR>
Mike<BR>
<BR>
_______________________________________________<BR>
PPML<BR>
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<BR>
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).<BR>
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<BR>
<A HREF="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</A><BR>
Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.<BR>
<BR>
</FONT>
</P>
</BODY>
</HTML>