Right Bill, my point was more in regards to the Global Policy Process
and what would take to pass such a hypothetical one. You may have a
point about should it be necessary or not and that would be another
interesting discussion to have.
The main reason I oppose to IPv6 Inter-RIR transfers though is not this
one but the other stated in my previous message.
Best regards
Fernando
On 14/10/2019 17:39, William Herrin wrote:
On Mon, Oct 14, 2019 at 11:17 AM Fernando Frediani
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 14/10/2019 14:49, Owen DeLong wrote:
> You have the control relationship backwards. IANA is a function
performed by PTI under a contract controlled by the NRO (Number
Resource Organization). The NRO is the five RIRs and they tell
ICANN how to perform the IANA function, not the other way around.
That's correct, however for a Global Policy to pass it takes quiet a
while on all five RIRs and in some of them proposals with similar
content have not reached consensus yet or were denied by a
significant
portion of the participants therefore I doubt this would be different
for a Global Policy with this intent.
Hi Fernando,
IPv4 transfers are not a global policy either, or if they've become
one they didn't start that way. They started as individual RIRs
declaring the conditions under which they would offer or accept
transfers with other RIRs. Where both RIRs' conditions are met, the
transfer can happen.
It's not obvious to me why we'd need to do anything more coordinated here.
Regards,
Bill Herrin
--
William Herrin
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://bill.herrin.us/
_______________________________________________
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:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
