<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD><TITLE>RE: [arin-ppml] Integrating Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 into NRPM 8.3</TITLE>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META name=GENERATOR content="MSHTML 8.00.6001.19046">
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Hi Bill,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>It's still not clear to me.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Referencing "values" of an RFC is not terribly
clarifying when attempting to match transfer needs requirements which already
are out of sync with RFC2050's 1 year window.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>And anyway, I say that requiring a needs test is
*NOT* consistent with the values expressed here in RFC2050:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>4. Operational Guidelines For Registries<BR><BR> 1.
Regional Registries provide registration services as
its<BR> primary function.</DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>By requiring a needs test for inter-RIR transfers,
we run the risk of driving these transfers off the books in contravention
of our PRIMARY function as stewards.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Just so we all understand. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>APNIC has a great need, and probably less
underutilized addresses in its market to supply that need.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>A good chunk of available space is likely to be
found in the legacy pools which are overrepresented in our region.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>The majority of this legacy space is not under any
RSA with any RIR.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>You can route legacy space from inside
Asia.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>A likely action that will occur is the
purchases of address blocks from legacy holders which will be routed in Asia by
network operators there, but ARIN will not be notified and Whois will not be
updated.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>I have said that I think we are moving into a
future with more, rather than less, conflict over IPv4 address control. This is
only to be expected, as the availability of free pool addresses has always
provided a replacement option for any addresses in conflict. In addition, the
underlying monetary value of address control, once understood, provides ample
motive to drive conflict.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>In an age of conflict, the accuracy of Whois will
be related to the level of trust afforded to it. The absence of a strong trust
authority could open the doors to a private registry.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Suppose there is conflict between private
organizations over address control. Then add to that conflict between RIRs
over which registry is the authoritative. What is to stop a real international
trust authority, say Lloyds of London, from using its trust to establish a
pricey but generally recognized registry?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Or even worse, what if the door is opened to the
ITU to claim the RIR system was failing in a post-exhaust era, and seek to
create its own registry system, or otherwise take control?</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Once again, I make the point that a market in IPv4
addresses, such as envisaged in 8.3 or in the APNIC transfer policy, meets the
stewardship goal of conservation through natural market forces.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>If we ladle on an extra helping of steward
meddling, we are taking action in contravention of our primary duty to maintain
a viable and trusted registry.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>So I would support the proposal if the requirement
was simply that both RIRs approve, leaving off the "signal" sent by the needs
language, which signal reads like a shot across the bow to me.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Regards,</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial>Mike</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT><BR> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT size=2 face=Arial></FONT> </DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE
style="BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px"
dir=ltr>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial">----- Original Message ----- </DIV>
<DIV
style="FONT: 10pt arial; BACKGROUND: #e4e4e4; font-color: black"><B>From:</B>
<A title=BillD@cait.wustl.edu href="mailto:BillD@cait.wustl.edu">Bill
Darte</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>To:</B> <A title=mike@nationwideinc.com
href="mailto:mike@nationwideinc.com">Mike Burns</A> ; <A
title=cgrundemann@gmail.com href="mailto:cgrundemann@gmail.com">Chris
Grundemann</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Cc:</B> <A title=arin-ppml@arin.net
href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">ARIN-PPML List</A> </DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 27, 2011 7:38 AM</DIV>
<DIV style="FONT: 10pt arial"><B>Subject:</B> RE: [arin-ppml] Integrating
Draft Policy ARIN-2011-1 into NRPM 8.3</DIV>
<DIV><BR></DIV><!-- 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: <A
href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</A> 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></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>