<p dir="ltr">I don't know how the community will view the complexities of such a global one space strategy. The 5 RIRs will begin to look like an imperial umbrella don't you think?<br>
Arin has done a lot of work to fold into the pool the legacy blocks out there. I regard that as hoarding and the jury is still out IMO on the amount and extent of future speculation before Ipv6 gains traction.<br>
The regional policy status of the RIRs also provide for a degree of definition that I think may be lost in a global foot loose fancy free monolith.... that the registry system could become?<br>
And that could, offer power centers like China and others to introduce perhaps even more restrictive practices than currently perceived.</p>
<p dir="ltr">I just see more questions than answers Milton, and as you suggest, global policy may come down to.. no policy at all. Hence my "If at all".</p>
<p dir="ltr">RD<br><br><br><br><br></p>
<p dir="ltr">On May 31, 2015 10:02 PM, "Milton Mueller" <<a href="mailto:mueller.syr.edu@gmail.com">mueller.syr.edu@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
> Because I favor A global number space and greater flexibility for organizations in the use of the addresses that they have. I think most of the paranoia about speculation and hoarding is unwarranted in results and needless restrictions. <br>
><br>
> Milton L Mueller<br>
><br>
> On May 31, 2015, at 18:55, Rudolph Daniel <<a href="mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com">rudi.daniel@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
><br>
>> Milton<br>
>><br>
>> If you support a policy change REF: 2015-2, <br>
>> Why would you support it?<br>
>> RD<br>
>><br>
>> On May 31, 2015 6:38 PM, "Milton L Mueller" <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> I think an ARIN policy change is in fact all that is needed. And asking for a global policy for anything related to transfers, unfortunately, means there will be no policy at all.<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> From: Rudolph Daniel [mailto:<a href="mailto:rudi.daniel@gmail.com">rudi.daniel@gmail.com</a>] <br>
>>> Sent: Sunday, May 31, 2015 11:45 AM<br>
>>> To: Milton L Mueller<br>
>>> Subject: RE: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2<br>
>>><br>
>>> <br>
>>><br>
>>> I would agree Milton and global policy is global policy.<br>
>>><br>
>>> I don't see the any value in changing Arin policy on this issue my own opinion.<br>
>>> RD<br>
>>><br>
>>> On May 31, 2015 10:49 AM, "Milton L Mueller" <<a href="mailto:mueller@syr.edu">mueller@syr.edu</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> It’s very naïve for people to suggest that national policy in China is going to be affected by a global policy of RIRs.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> --MM<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> <br>
>>>><br>
>>>> From: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net">arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net</a>] On Behalf Of Rudolph Daniel<br>
>>>> Sent: Saturday, May 30, 2015 5:49 PM<br>
>>>> To: <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] ARIN-PPML 2015-2<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> <br>
>>>><br>
>>>> >>>That?s why I didn?t propose language? I don?t think the issue in question can be unilaterally addressed, so I think we should accept that and those that are interested can begin work on a globally coordinated policy if they desire to do so.<<<<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Tend to agree ...It may be better addressed at global policy level if at all.<br>
>>>> RD<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On May 30, 2015 12:00 PM, <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml-request@arin.net">arin-ppml-request@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Send ARIN-PPML mailing list submissions to<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit<br>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
>>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:arin-ppml-request@arin.net">arin-ppml-request@arin.net</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:arin-ppml-owner@arin.net">arin-ppml-owner@arin.net</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific<br>
>>>>> than "Re: Contents of ARIN-PPML digest..."<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Today's Topics:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 1. Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers<br>
>>>>> to Specified Recipients) (Owen DeLong)<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Message: 1<br>
>>>>> Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 18:16:34 -0700<br>
>>>>> From: Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>><br>
>>>>> To: Jason Schiller <<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a>><br>
>>>>> Cc: "<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>" <<a href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>><br>
>>>>> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4<br>
>>>>> (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients)<br>
>>>>> Message-ID: <<a href="mailto:8A9F435E-20BF-4E90-9141-99A7D93FC6EE@delong.com">8A9F435E-20BF-4E90-9141-99A7D93FC6EE@delong.com</a>><br>
>>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> If it were enforceable, it would address my concern.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> The problem is that we are then looking to have an ARIN contract enjoin an action by the organization in another RIR which I am not sure would give us any recourse whatsoever were that contract to be violated.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> That?s why I didn?t propose language? I don?t think the issue in question can be unilaterally addressed, so I think we should accept that and those that are interested can begin work on a globally coordinated policy if they desire to do so.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> We?ve already seen that attempting to unilaterally influence minimum policy requirements on other regions is unlikely to work. Witness RIPEs recent ?workaround? to ?compatible needs basis?. I am not especially interested in expanding this problem space.<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> Owen<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> > On May 29, 2015, at 12:06 PM, Jason Schiller <<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> > Owen,<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> > So does this text cover your proposal then?<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> > Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2<br>
>>>>> > Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients)<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> > Date: 26 May 2015<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> > Problem Statement:<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> > Organizations that obtain a 24 month supply of IP addresses via the<br>
>>>>> > transfer market and then have an unexpected change in business plan<br>
>>>>> > are unable to move IP addresses to the proper RIR within the first 12<br>
>>>>> > months of receipt.<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> > Policy statement:<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> > Replace 8.4, bullet 4, to read:<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> > "> Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received a<br>
>>>>> > transfer, allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources<br>
>>>>> > from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the approval of a transfer<br>
>>>>> > request.<br>
>>>>> > - This restriction does not include M&A transfers.<br>
>>>>> > - This restriction does not include a transfer to a wholly owned<br>
>>>>> > subsidiary out side of the ARIN service region<br>
>>>>> > if the recipient org will be required to not transfer any IP space<br>
>>>>> > for the remaining balance of 12 month window."<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:06 AM, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> >> On May 28, 2015, at 6:46 AM, Jason Schiller <<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>> >><br>
>>>>> >> Owen,<br>
>>>>> >><br>
>>>>> >> How does that differ from the policy text I sent?<br>
>>>>> >><br>
>>>>> >> Can you send an idea of policy text?<br>
>>>>> >><br>
>>>>> >> I thought the text I sent said that an ARIN org can transfer IPs out to another wholely owned subsidiary in another RIR region if they have been the recipient of transfer in less that 12 months IF the recipient org will be required (read by recipient's RIR policy) to hold the transfered resource for the balance of the 12 months.<br>
>>>>> >><br>
>>>>> >><br>
>>>>> > Your proposal allows substitution.<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> > ARIN->Other RIR space A<br>
>>>>> > Space B Other RIR-> Money/etc.<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> > I want to see substitution transfers prohibited.<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> > Owen<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> >> ___Jason<br>
>>>>> >><br>
>>>>> >> On May 28, 2015 8:31 AM, "Owen DeLong" <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>> >> Or simply not permit it under ARIN policy until such exists.<br>
>>>>> >><br>
>>>>> >> Owen<br>
>>>>> >><br>
>>>>> >> > On May 28, 2015, at 1:49 PM, John Curran <<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jcurran@arin.net">jcurran@arin.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>> >> > On May 27, 2015, at 11:39 PM, Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com">owen@delong.com</a>>> wrote:<br>
>>>>> >> >><br>
>>>>> >> >> My suggestion is that I don't mind (virtually) unrestricted moves of addresses to different regions staying with the same organization. However, if we are to allow that, I want us to find a way that you can't merely use that as a way to move addresses out of flip protection to then flip them to another organization via an RIR with a less restrictive transfer policy.<br>
>>>>> >> >><br>
>>>>> >> >> So... If you transfer addresses to another region, keeping them in the same organization, no penalty. However, you are not allowed to subsequently transfer them (or other addresses in that region) to an external party for at least 12 months.<br>
>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>> >> > That second portion that you seek would affect the ongoing operation of<br>
>>>>> >> > another RIR, i.e. it requires them having some explicit policy to that effect.<br>
>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>> >> > To obtain the result you seek, we either need globally coordinated transfer<br>
>>>>> >> > policy in this area, or you need to make the inter-RIR transfer policy explicit<br>
>>>>> >> > in this regard in determination of compatibility.<br>
>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>> >> > /John<br>
>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>> >> > John Curran<br>
>>>>> >> > President and CEO<br>
>>>>> >> > ARIN<br>
>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>> >> ><br>
>>>>> >><br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>> > --<br>
>>>>> > _______________________________________________________<br>
>>>>> > Jason Schiller|NetOps|<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a> <mailto:<a href="mailto:jschiller@google.com">jschiller@google.com</a>>|571-266-0006<br>
>>>>> ><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> -------------- next part --------------<br>
>>>>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...<br>
>>>>> URL: <<a href="http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150529/10dd910c/attachment-0001.html">http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20150529/10dd910c/attachment-0001.html</a>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> ------------------------------<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> ARIN-PPML mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> End of ARIN-PPML Digest, Vol 119, Issue 23<br>
>>>>> ******************************************</p>