Thanks, Bill, for summarizing your suggested changes.<div><br></div><div>Does anyone in the community have input on Bill's item #1 (whether 2011-1 should be part of 8.3, or separated out as 8.4)? </div><div><br></div>
<div>Further comments inline...<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 12:58 PM, William Herrin <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im">On Thu, Oct 20, 2011 at 3:04 PM, Scott Leibrand <<a href="mailto:scottleibrand@gmail.com">scottleibrand@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> But I was hoping you (and anyone else with ideas) could provide actual<br>
> constructive feedback on how the text could be improved. If such<br>
> suggestions are being provided here on list, we can discuss whether they are<br>
> potential improvements we should incorporate.<br>
<br>
</div>Hi Scott,<br>
<br>
1. Pull it out of section 8.3 and put it in its own section 8.4. At no<br>
time in the process do I recall the community express a desire to<br>
tamper with section 8.3 as part of the inter-region transfer process.<br>
While such integration may become desirable in the future it is, IMHO,<br>
not desirable now. We should implement, learn from and tune the<br>
inter-region policy long before considering whether or how to<br>
integrate it with the in-region transfer policy.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>I personally disagree, but I think it's a valid point, and would be happy to adjust the text accordingly if the community agrees that we should do so.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
2. Earlier drafts required potential recipients to meet the<br>
eligibility criteria set by BOTH regions. While this increases the<br>
hassle factor associated with transferring addresses in or out of the<br>
region, I believe it provides a valuable safeguard for this, our first<br>
attempt at inter-region transfers. If, over time, we find that it's<br>
all hassle for no benefit, we can remove it.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>When that was put in place prior to the APNIC Busan meeting, I agree it was a valuable safeguard. But now that all the RIRs' transfer policies are needs-based, I believe this would just be an extra hassle with no real benefit. In addition, part of APNIC's reason for re-adding needs basis to their transfer policy was to avoid having to justify needs to ARIN. So in addition to being unnecessary, I believe a requirement to have ARIN do such a needs justification on out-of-region transfer recipients is harmful to the spirit of inter-RIR cooperation.</div>
<div><br></div><div>It's also worth noting that this topic was discussed in Philly, and my sense of the room was that there was a consensus for the destination RIR doing the needs assessment.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>
3. Who determines that ARIN and another RIR "share compatible,<br>
needs-based policies?" Unless we set out explicit criteria, this is an<br>
open-ended policy-level question which should be decided by<br>
policy-level people, i.e. the Board. NOT by staff. I offered this<br>
criticism on the earlier drafts as well and I'm disappointed to see it<br>
hasn't been addressed.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>We discussed this. John can elaborate, but the gist was that an RIR with a transfer policy that requires that a transfer recipient justify need to their RIR would be a compatible transfer policy. By contrast, a transfer policy where the transfer recipient simply must attest that they have need would not be compatible. I believe that is exactly what the community wants here, so I don't see this as an issue.</div>
<div><br></div><div>-Scott</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<div class="im"><br>
<br>
> If not, the choice is between<br>
> moving forward or delaying. I'm not sure how delaying another 6 months<br>
> helps.<br>
<br>
</div>I have some other nitpicks, but without first correcting these large<br>
issues, I'm with Marty: good try but you failed to capture the<br>
community's intent. The newly written draft would benefit from another<br>
cycle of discussion, modification and presentation so that it can move<br>
forward with consensus on the actual policy language.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="h5"><br>
Regards,<br>
Bill Herrin<br>
<br>
--<br>
William D. Herrin ................ <a href="mailto:herrin@dirtside.com">herrin@dirtside.com</a> <a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us">bill@herrin.us</a><br>
3005 Crane Dr. ...................... Web: <<a href="http://bill.herrin.us/" target="_blank">http://bill.herrin.us/</a>><br>
Falls Church, VA 22042-3004<br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>