John, You're right, of course. If I'm going to advocate that the current "24-month planning horizon" is good, then I have to defend why ARIN staff looking at ANY forward-looking data is good for network operations. But doesn't that also mean those who support looking at backward-facing data also have to defend that position? The point I'm understanding from your reply is there is an argument to be made that ARIN should automate parts of the transfer process to make handling fast and help promote accuracy in Whois (and any other benefits that come along with automation). And that human review of business plans and previous use impedes automation.
Is that the gist of your reply? Or have I misunderstood you? David David R Huberman Microsoft Corporation Principal, Global IP Addressing -----Original Message----- From: John Curran [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Monday, September 22, 2014 7:53 PM To: David Huberman Cc: Owen DeLong; Kevin Blumberg; [email protected] List ([email protected]) Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2014-20: Transfer Policy Slow Start and Simplified Needs Verification On Sep 22, 2014, at 1:05 PM, David Huberman <[email protected]> wrote: > No one participating in the RIR system should be prevented from doing > any bona fide transfer. In the 8.3 world, network operators must be > free to buy and sell IP addresses as it fits their business plans. David - The above premise implies a policy regime which must always confirm that any transfer of IPv4 space is warranted based on some corresponding needs- assessment of "business plans"... Given that these forward-looking plans can change, what exactly is the value in confirming that the transfer size "fits" with the particular plans? What function is served by doing so? > If we can agree on that, can > we agree that any mechanism which forces a company to do multiple > transfers or buy multiple blocks is a disservice to the community? By any mechanism, do you mean like something such as a "24-month planning horizon"? To put any limit on amount that can be transferred based on a specific planning horizon will always result in multiple transfers over a longer period. Is that a disservice to the community? >> Do you see (per the proposal intent) any opportunities for >> simplification of present transfer policy, either by changing the existing >> proposal or otherwise? > > I'm not going to say yes or not, wrt 2014-20. I don't know yet. Many have advocated elimination of needs-assessment for transfers (and 2014-20 appears to do that for several situations); it seems conflicted to argue for less hurdles for transfers, but also that transfers should be sized to "fit business plans", i.e. committing ARIN and requestors to time-intensive scrutiny of business and technical plans, as occurs in the course of needs-assessment. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN _______________________________________________ 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.
