Hi Bill, I agree with what you've written and its implications. The time for RIRs being anything other than local language/time/etc is passed, in my humble opinion.
But here's the problem: I do not believe LACNIC would agree with such a policy. Right now they're debating allowing an inter-RIR transfer policy that ONLY allows inbound transfers; it disallows space from leaving the region. A two-way policy is a non-starter. (And the one-way policy is facing stiff opposition.) So if you believe me - if you believe a global policy cannot be passed right now because at least one RIR won't agree to it - what do we do here in the ARIN region, where ARIN staff are applying policy in a way which restricts use? Staff have told us they need a policy change to do anything. Thanks /david David R Huberman Principal, Global IP Addressing Microsoft Corporation > -----Original Message----- > From: William Herrin [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, September 15, 2015 2:25 PM > To: David Huberman <[email protected]> > Cc: ARIN PPML ([email protected]) <[email protected]> > Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Support for 2015-5 (Expand permitted out-of-region > use of IPv4 space) > > On Tue, Sep 15, 2015 at 4:36 PM, David Huberman > <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ignoring what 2015-5 says and how it's constructed, what is your > > opinion of the fundamental issue here? Do you think network operators > > should be allowed to take ARIN-issued resources and use them anywhere > > in the world, regardless > > of topology? In answering this, please understand that > > ARIN's current procedure is "NO". > > > Hi David, > > I think that's the wrong question. I think that's a destructive question with > answers that range from bad to worse. > > A better question is: should we have regionally confined resource pools (and > policies) or global resource pools (and policies)? > > There was a proposition posted here a while back to the effect that the > regional registries were only supposed to be a local interface to the global > address system. They weren't supposed to diverge in to distinct governance > regimes. Would that be better? > > There is extra challenge in developing global policy, but it would in theory > permit the assignments to be used globally without creating any "flag of > convenience" fairness problems. But... is permission to employ addresses > globally worth the cost of regional autonomy? > > Regards, > Bill Herrin > > > > -- > William Herrin ................ [email protected] [email protected] Owner, > Dirtside Systems ......... Web: > <https://na01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3a%2f%2fwww.d > irtside.com%2f&data=01%7c01%7cDavid.Huberman%40microsoft.com%7cec > 5008008600445cd90308d2be142561%7c72f988bf86f141af91ab2d7cd011db47% > 7c1&sdata=ZKlYit9LM2K5w93SX5skcz9w3RUdtv8WePJU1YJztMA%3d> _______________________________________________ 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.
