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

On Oct 17, 2014, at 8:29 AM, sandrabrown at ipv4marketgroup.com wrote:
> 
> 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. 

Sandra - 

 The assessment of RIPE 2014-05 for compatibility is based on the very
 first sentence of the section 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfer) of the ARIN 
 Number Resource Policy Manual -

 "Inter-regional transfers may take place only via RIRs who agree to the transfer and share reciprocal, compatible, needs-based policies."

 The requirement is quite specific, in that ARIN can only to transfers
 to RIRs which share _policies_ which are compatible and needs-based. 
 I do understand that adoption and implementation of RIPE 2014-05 may
 result in some form of operational processes which meet this criteria, 
 but the policy itself must be explicitly needs-based and would not be
 as presently proposed.

 The goal of RIPE 2014-05 is laudable, in that the proposed policy text
 seeks to meet the requirements of any other RIR with amazing level of 
 brevity.   Unfortunately, it is lacks any needs-based specific criteria
 and thus it is not explicitly compatible with respect to Inter-RIR 
 transfers from the ARIN region per our community-developed policy.

 Given that the intention of the RIPE 2014-05 proposal is to be compatible
 with ARIN's Inter-RIR transfer policy (including needs-based requirement), 
 and it is just the lack of specificity in the proposed policy text which is
 problematic, would it be worth considering changing your very streamlined 
 policy text to make the needs-basis requirement explicit for transfers 
 from region that requiring such?

 This could be as simple as adding a policy statement to the effect of:

 "For transfers from RIR regions which require needs-based policies, 
  recipients must provide a plan to the RIPE NCC for use of the 
  transferred resource within 24 months."  (for example)

 I recognize that having to place such a statement in your proposed
 policy text detracts from its present elegance, but this may be a
 situation where a less refined approach is warranted so that maximum
 compatibility can be achieved to the benefit of all IP address users.

 If this suggestion is not of interest, please disregard. If you have
 any questions of the above, I'd be happy to answer them either on-list
 or privately as you prefer.

Best wishes,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN

p.s.  Regardless of outcome, I will also report back to the ARIN community
     about how the current NRPM 8.4 policy text places requirements on 
     other RIR's policy text, and to consider the merits and concerns when 
     compared to other approaches, e.g. putting any Inter-RIR recipient 
     requirements (to extend deemed necessary at all) in ARIN's policy 
     text instead.  FYI,/John