I’ve now received both on and off-list requests to clarify my sustained opposition to 2016-5.
All of the reasons stated in my original email on this subject remain: > I am opposed to this policy proposal. > > Given that we are now in a world where the only way to obtain IPv4 space is > through transfers, I think it makes much more sense to put policy changes for > IPv4 transfers into section 4 and retain the simplified text that exists > today in section 8 rather than copying most of section 4 into section 8 with > revisions in the process. > > The likely outcome of such an exercise is to create a number of changes which > may or may not be fully understood by the community. The interaction of this > rewrite with other types of transferable resources (AS numbers at the moment) > must also be carefully considered. > > If we want to change IPv4 policy, then let’s change IPv4 policy in section 4. > > If we want to change transfer policy for all resources, we can do that > cleanly in section 8. > > While the NRPM may not be a perfect model of a structured document, this > proposal would make it significantly worse. > It’s already been identified that this policy, absent creative staff interpretation (which staff conveniently said they would do) would have negative impact on TPIA networks. It’s unclear what impact this proposal would have on those which currently qualify for MDN. As much as people like to complain about the complexity in section 4, much of it has been put there for good reason and I do not think we should discard it so lightly without regard to the full ramifications. Owen _______________________________________________ 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.
