[address-policy-wg] [policy-announce]2014-05 New Draft Document and ImpactAnalysis Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of InternetResources) (Erik Bais)

Hi Erik - -

>>>> The model proposed in the policy is intended to mimic the existing policy between
>>>> APNIC and ARIN whereby the arbitration topic is not needed. When two
>>>> RIR's have like needs assessment, this topic goes away. 

>>I noticed that the existing policy proposal doesn't have the arbitration point and the fact is, that the policies between RIPE and APNIC >>and RIPE and ARIN aren't the same. 
>>That in combination with the remark in the current policy summary : 

>>>> RIPE NCC should create an operational procedure that satisfies the requirements of both RIRs in order to allow transfers to and from its service region.

>>That is an issue in my view. 

>>That in combination with what is stated in the Impact Assessment that the ARIN staff does not see the policy to be compatible with >>theirs .. are the points that I wanted to address. 

>>By having the other RIR pre-approve the transfer (either receiving or sending transfers) based on their view and interpretation of their >>own policy, they can do the need justification. 
>>Adjustments in their policy won't affect compatibility of the inter-RIR policy. 

>>And when the transfer is then submitted for processing to RIPE, it will always be compatible, the RIPE staff doesn't have to cram up on >>all policy changes, arbitration isn't an issue and you will have a policy that will work. 
>>If one of the other RIR's is going to change to a no needs justification policy, they can just pre-approve the transfer, and the RIPE NCC >>can still just process the transfer ... 

>>Personally I think that having the other RIR (not RIPE NCC) do the local policy checking and need justification if they have it for the >>transfer, makes this a lot easier, without having the RIPE NCC to line up on both the ARIN and APNIC policies. 

>>As an example: 
>>What if Registration Services (RS) from RIPE NCC would approve a certain justification according to their policy interpretation and ARIN >>or APNIC RS would not approve the same logic ? 
>>Policy interpretation and the justification checking, should be done at the RIR who has the most strict policy. It doesn't make sense to >>me, to have RIPE IPRA's try to do a justification check based on interpretation of the APNIC or ARIN policy ... 

Erik, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that the RIR with
the strictest rules will perform the justification checks.  For example,
 If we had a transfer from ARIN region to RIPE NCC region, then you are
proposing the RIPE region buyer would have the needs justification
performed by ARIN.   Do I understand you correctly? 

The wording of the current proposal simply says that RIPE NCC would
create an operational procedure.  Marco Schmidt guides me that this
operational procedure will be created in detail between the RIRs once
RIPE NCC implements the proposal.  The proposal will open the door for
the option that other RIRs ask for information from the buying resource
holder in RIPE NCC, in other words, that the operational procedure could
be what you suggest, that another RIR, such as ARIN in my example above,
would perform the needs justification on the RIPE buyer. 

Another solution might be that the other RIR sends a list of questions
based on its policies/requirements and RIPE NCC passes this information
to the purchaser and communicates back its answers. This seems more
practical than having RIPE NCC staff updated about any policy changes in
other regions. However what procedure(s) will be established is to be
decided between the RIRs and, as I said, I did not intend for the policy
itself to define operational procedures.

So far we only know that ARIN doesn't see compatibility between the
policies - again, to add commentary, I find this very surprising, since
I repeat again, that the policy allows for the enforcement of needs
justification to ARIN's content, through operational control.  APNIC is
unsure.

Erik, I think we are on the same page with respect to the meaning, and
it is merely that Marco, Gert, Sander, et al, should guide us on what is
policy versus operational procedure.  

>>>> This is the nature of negotiation in the global community. 

>>Perhaps, but a policy for the benefit of the global community, should have some kind of arbitration clauses in there or at least define >>where arbitration should be done. 
>>It is good stewardship to have a RIPE policy that wouldn't open up the doors for long international discussions without a clear view on >>who the 'problem-owner' is .. and for future customers it should be clear where they can take their complains if they are not happy >>with the outcome. 

I asked Marco about this and so far there is no Inter-RIR arbitration.
Currently if an LIR in our region disagrees with a RIPE NCC decision,
they can start an arbitration. 

However, as you point out, if a resource holder in RIPE NCC region
disagrees with a decision e.g. from ARIN, there will be no direct way
that they can start arbitration against this decision. 

I suppose a solution would be a global arbitration procedure, and this
would seem to need a global policy proposal (to be accepted by the
different RIRs and beyond the scope of 2014-05).

Another more light-weight solution would be that the transfer partner in
the other region starts the arbitration.  Here is another hypothetical
example.  Say, Company A in ARIN wants to transfer to company B in RIPE
NCC region.  ARIN rejects the transfer request, due to missing
requirements by company B.   They both disagree with ARIN's decision. 
Then Company A starts an appeal with ARIN (as the ARIN member).    

This use of existing mechanisms would at least allow 2014-05 to get off
the ground without making it too large.
 
>>Regards,
>>Erik Bais

Regards, and thanks for pointing out these potential issues,
Sandra Brown