<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;" class="">
On Jun 4, 2015, at 6:45 PM, Matthew Kaufman <<a href="mailto:matthew@matthew.at" class="">matthew@matthew.at</a>> wrote:<br class="">
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class=""><span style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; float: none; display: inline !important;" class="">You
can also note that while RFC2050 mentions "transfer" exactly once, without definition, it is now obsolted by RFC7020 which doesn't mention "transfer" even once.</span><br style="font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: auto; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: auto; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px;" class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br class="">
<div class="">RFC 2050 was recognized as quite dated, and a number of folks went about an effort</div>
<div class="">to update it. Efforts were made to keep the language in RFC 7020 describing the </div>
<div class="">Internet Number Registry system as objective as possible, and you can look in the </div>
<div class="">acknowledgements section if you’re curious about the many participants involved.</div>
<div class="">(I would be remiss if I did not specifically call out David Conrad for his reluctant </div>
<div class="">but highly effective efforts to keep the document neutral in its descriptive text… :-)</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">One of the most significant reasons RFC 2050 was dated is due to the inclusion of</div>
<div class="">detailed registry policy in the document, whereas RFC 7020 specifically does not </div>
<div class="">include any statement of registry policy, focusing instead on the goals and structure</div>
<div class="">of the overall system (i.e. a document which we’ve needed for some time and now</div>
<div class="">have available.)</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;">Should we conclude that meddling in transfers is out of scope for the registry then?</span><br class="">
</blockquote>
</div>
<div class=""><span class="" style="float: none; display: inline !important;"><br class="">
</span></div>
<div class="">RFC 7020 notes that "The RIRs also conduct regional number policy development </div>
<div class="">used in the administration of the number resources for which they are responsible.”,</div>
<div class="">i.e. it all depends on what policy is developed in this regard.</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">Thanks,</div>
<div class="">/John</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
<div class="">John Curran</div>
<div class="">President and CEO</div>
<div class="">ARIN</div>
<div class=""><br class="">
</div>
</body>
</html>