<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 10, 2019, at 20:34 , David Farmer <<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" class="">farmer@umn.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class="">I'm fine with what Staff has been doing, the current inter-RIR policy in section 8.4 clearly doesn't allow IPv6 transfers.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>Staff has been currently allowing M&A inter-RIR transfers of IPv4 and ASNs even though there’s no policy permitting or prohibiting it.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class="">However, the new text added to section 8.2 seems to clearly allow inter-RIR M&A transfers independent of what section 8.4 has to say and its exclusion of IPv6.<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">Current M&A transfers include all resource types, IPv4, IPv6, and ASN. By adding this new text without any reference to section 8.4 or a clear exclusion of IPv6 in the text added, I have to conclude the text intends to allow inter-RIR M&A transfers of IPv6 and section 4.4 and 4.10 resources, which the current section 8.2 allows.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>As I understand it, the intent of the new text in 8.2 is to document that what staff has been doing is allowed. There is no intent to expand the scope of what is permitted in inter-RIR transfers.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class="">If that is not the community's intent then the text added should refer to section 8.4 or include an explicit exclusion of IPv6 for inter-RIR M&A transfers, and 4.4 and 4.10 resources as well, if they are not to be transferred by inter-RIR M&As.<br class=""></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I’m all for clarification of the policy text. Can that be achieved without sending the policy back to draft status?</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class="">Furthermore, if you intend an inter-RIR M&A transfer to use section 8.4 to execute the inter-RIR transfer, you will need to consider the meaning the hold time in the third bullet point of section 8.4, and the effect you intend it to have.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>I don’t intend anything, per se. I didn’t propose it, nor do I have any particularly strong stake in the outcome. However, it was presented to the community as a clarification of existing process, not an expansion of that process. As such, I sought (and received) clarification from staff that their interpretation of the policy would not, in fact, expand their treatment of inter-RIR M&A transfers.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><div class=""><font color="#333333" face="-apple-system, system-ui, segoe ui, roboto, helvetica neue, Arial, sans-serif, apple color emoji, segoe ui emoji, segoe ui symbol" class=""><span style="font-size: 16.1px;" class=""></span></font></div>I cannot support the text as written, the staff interpretation doesn't jive with my interpretation of the text, and I don't think the current text jives with the intent of a large portion of the community either.</div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>As I interpret it, the current text provides slightly more clarity than the existing text while leaving the possibility of M&A transfers of IPv6 as an open question in the written words. Staff has stated that they will continue to interpret IPv6 transfers as not being permitted, so I have no objection to the policy as written since it does provide some clarity that is currently lacking without actually affecting staff action.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I agree that greater clarity that IPv6 M&A transfers are not allowed would be preferable. I would support amending this proposal to achieve that, especially if it can be accomplished without reverting to draft policy.</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><div class="">Section 4.1 of the PDP says, "Internet number resource policy must provide for fair and impartial management of resources according to unambiguous guidelines and criteria."</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">In my opinion, as written this text is not unambiguous. If the community expects 8.4 to be followed to execution an inter-RIR M&A transfer the text should say that, better yet the text should clearly exclude IPv6 and maybe section 4.4 and 4.10 resources, on its own, if that is the intent of the community.<br class=""></div></div></div></blockquote><div><br class=""></div>In my opinion, this text is not the issue. The existing text is even more ambiguous, so I see this as a step in the correct direction.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: Helvetica; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant-caps: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; text-align: start; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0px; text-decoration: none;" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thanks.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">On Thu, Oct 10, 2019 at 8:51 PM Owen DeLong <<a href="mailto:owen@delong.com" target="_blank" class="">owen@delong.com</a>> wrote:<div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; border-left-width: 1px; border-left-style: solid; border-left-color: rgb(204, 204, 204); padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="">Are you asking why the proposed policy doesn’t effect this change to current staff action, or are you asking why staff action didn’t change when they started accepting 8.2-based inter-RIR transfers without a policy change?<div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Owen</div><div class=""><br class=""><div class=""><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Sep 30, 2019, at 11:45 , David Farmer <<a href="mailto:farmer@umn.edu" target="_blank" class="">farmer@umn.edu</a>> wrote:</div><br class=""><div class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">I have a question regarding the Staff Understating of the policy from the Staff and Legal Assessment of the policy, which says the following; <br clear="all" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div>Staff understands the intent of the draft policy is to clarify handling of mergers and acquisition transfer processing between RIRs who have compatible transfer policies. The proposed change would not be a change from present practice but the policy change would make our implementation of the current policy clearer. It is understood that IPv6 would be excluded since this refers to Inter-RIR transfers in which IPv6 is not permitted to be part of the transfer.</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Where the new policy text says;</div><div class=""><br class=""></div>When merger, acquisition, or reorganization activity results in surviving legal entity that is incorporated outside the ARIN service region, or focused outside the ARIN service region, or is merging with an organization that already has a relationship with another RIR, then resources may be moved to another RIR in accordance with the receiving RIR’s policies.</div><div dir="ltr" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">So my question is;</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">What in the new policy text justifies the exclusion of transfers of IPv6 resources for Inter-RiR M&A transfers? The new policy text doesn't directly reference section 8.4 which clearly doesn't include IPv6. However, nothing explicitly includes IPv6 in section 8.2 for the current Intra-region M&A transfers, so what excludes them for Inter-RIR M&A transfers?</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">While I agree a segment of the community doesn't want there to be inter-RIR M&A transfers of IPv6, I don't believe that is what this policy text says. If the community's intent is to clarify the status quo then and not allow inter-RIR M&A transfers of IPV6, then I believe there needs to be an explicit exclusion for IPv6 in Internet-RIR M&A transfers. Otherwise, I believe the text as written includes IPv6 inter-RIR M&A transfers.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">I cannot support this policy as written, either the policy statement needs to be updated to explicitly exclude IPv6 from inter-RIR M&A or the staff understating needs to updated to include IPv6 for inter-RIR M&A, because as it stands, I believe the staff undressing and the policy text are inconsistent with each other.</div><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class="">Thank you. </div><div dir="ltr" class=""><br class=""></div><div dir="ltr" class="">--<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">===============================================<br class="">David Farmer <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank" class="">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br class="">Networking & Telecommunication Services<br class="">Office of Information Technology<br class="">University of Minnesota <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br class="">Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br class="">===============================================<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div></div></div></div></div>_______________________________________________<br class="">ARIN-PPML<br class="">You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to<br class="">the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).<br class="">Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:<br class=""><a href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml" target="_blank" class="">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a><br class="">Please contact<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:info@arin.net" target="_blank" class="">info@arin.net</a><span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span>if you experience any issues.<br class=""></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></div></div></blockquote></div><br clear="all" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div>--<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class=""><div dir="ltr" class="">===============================================<br class="">David Farmer <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><a href="mailto:Email%3Afarmer@umn.edu" target="_blank" class="">Email:farmer@umn.edu</a><br class="">Networking & Telecommunication Services<br class="">Office of Information Technology<br class="">University of Minnesota <span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span><br class="">2218 University Ave SE Phone: 612-626-0815<br class="">Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 612-812-9952<br class="">===============================================<span class="Apple-converted-space"> </span></div></div></div></div></div></blockquote></div><br class=""></body></html>