[address-policy-wg] declining 2012-01

> -----Original Message-----
> I was merely questioning the rationale of having a completely separate
> transfer policy for each case, instead of just one covering all cases.
[Milton L Mueller] 

The problem is that you have 5 different RIRs and (potentially) one global market.

> In that case we could have general conditions covering all cases and

[Milton L Mueller] which "we" are you talking about? The European "we", American we....?

> I also know that the current intra-RIR transfer policy is embedded in
> the more general allocation and assignment policy, so in that sense it
> seems like a good idea to make a separate policy and not tamper with
> existing material. Should the community feel that a policy for inter-RIR
> transfers is needed, I urge to keep policy coherency in mind when
> considering conditions. Right now I feel that the suggested conditions
> for inter-RIR transfers differ too much from conditions already in place
> for intra-RIR transfers. For example, in case of intra-RIR transfers,

[Milton L Mueller] But that is precisely the crux of the problem we are facing. If you think it's hard to get a single coherent policy through one RIR/state, trying getting one through 5, especially when the incentives of the members of the different territorial communities diverge. 
Territorially exclusive RIRs are very similar in structure and incentives to territorially sovereign states, and defining a single, uniform policy for inter-RIR transfers is very much like negotiating a trade treaty. 

In short, I think a global policy should completely supplant the regional/territorial policy. 

> the need for address space is evaluated by RIPE, which (according to the
> proposal) would not be the case with inter-RIR transfers (the wording of
> condition 2. is quite vague).

[Milton L Mueller] If you think the global policy should try to conform to the local ones, you've got it backwards. It is the opposite that needs to occur.