Given that the existing wording definitely had a lack of consensus and that there has been no proposed wording to address the issues raised by the community, unless someone has a proposal for wording that is more likely to gain consensus, I am inclined to support Bill’s idea of abandoning this proposal.
Reiterating support for the existing failed language is not useful in this context. The community as a whole clearly did not achieve consensus on this language. There has been very limited support expressed for the idea in general. Owen On May 5, 2014, at 4:23 PM, <[email protected]> <[email protected]> wrote: > I support the policy in that it helps companies in the region and I do > not see any harm to any entities in the region. The problem David > Huberman is trying to solve is that there are IP's being used out of > region, and we all know out of region use has lots of geo-location > issues, and for some companies, routing issues, and he needs these IP's > to be registered in the region they are used. Coupled with the fact > there would not be any IP's available to his company from the free pool > for the next 12 months, there is no harm. > > The only thing we don't know is whether this is a one-off problem, or > whether other companies have the same issue. I would think other > companies have the same problem but are not commenting. I suspect the > people at ARIN33 felt the problem should be solved, but that it didn't > apply to them so they are not being as vocal now. The shepherds could > contact companies with a profile similar to David Huberman's and see if > it would be of service to them. > > It would seem that the more freedom there is to transfer IP's between > registries, the easier it will be to conduct business globally, and the > more critical the role of the RIR in the future. > > It is not a harmful policy. > > Sandra Brown > IPv4 Market Group. > > > Should we abandon this Draft? > > After the Chicago Public Policy Meeting, based upon the community's > suggestion that the AC continue to work on this Draft. ?I sent an email > to PPML asking for support or opposition to this Draft and received just > 2 responses....both in opposition. > > I reiterate that PPML message below and once again ask for your support > or opposition. Failing to generate greater support for this Draft and > given that the AC has approximately 20 proposals and drafts on its > docket.....I plan to make a motion at the next AC monthly meeting > recommending abandoning this Draft Policy for lack of community > support...... > > Now is your opportunity to convince the community that this a worthwhile > effort....or not. > > Thanks, > > Bill Darte > AC Shepherd for 2014-2 > > > Draft Policy Issue: > Simply, the author wishes the Anti-Flip language currently used in the > NRPM to be relaxed, allowing an Inter-RIR transfer within their own > organization of previously existing addresses....though they may have > received a new allocation or assignment within the last 12 months. > > Current draft language states that the organization may do such a > transfer, but may not use the actual addresses which were received from > ARIN (or through transfer) in the previous 12 months. ?But they could > therefore transfer other resources holdings. > > Request for feedback: > In order to further this discussion and gain a consensus, I would like > to once again ask the community to speak in favor or against this Draft > Policy so that it may be presented and discussed at our next Public > Policy Consultation at NANOG in June. > > 1. Yes or No. ?Should the community relax existing policy which attempts > to limit the transfer of ARIN resources out of region, in order to allow > an organization flexibility to move address blocks to another portion of > their own organization in another region, even though they might have > received different addresses within ARIN in the last 12 months?? > > (Note current policy would still restrict availability of new addresses > to the organization for a period of 12 months after the transfer and is > not being changed by this draft). > > 2. ?If YES above, are there any other qualifications or limits that > should be imposed on the resources transferred or the organization? > > (Note that a vote of NO to question #1 would essentially ask the > Advisory Council to abandon this draft policy leaving existing policy in > place.) > > Thanks to all who continue to work within the community to exercise > their right and duty to craft appropriate policy guiding ARIN's > important role in Internet number resource management. > > > _______________________________________________ > PPML > You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to > the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). > Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: > http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml > Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
