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

Hi John,

* John Curran

> On Oct 21, 2014, at 10:28 AM, Tore Anderson <tore at fud.no> wrote:
>> 2) Hard-coding 24 months is a risk. If for example the ARIN community
>> changes their transfer policy to have different need period, then we
>> would find ourselves with incompatible policies again. So I think that
>> we should instead just refer to whatever need period the other RIR has.
> 
> To be clear, ARIN policy for inter-RIR transfers does not require any 
> specific need period - my text was solely to be an example.  There must 
> be policy text that refers to needs-based (i.e. some operational need 
> for the address space), but any change in ARIN's policy for transfers
> within the ARIN region should not require a change to RIPE policy for 
> needs-based compatibility in any circumstance.

Really? I would have thought that the periods would need to be the same
for the policies to be compatible. Otherwise, we could have set a
ridiculously long period like 1000 years. Even if it that would be
compatible with the letter of the ARIN policy I highly doubt it would be
compatible with the spirit. :-)

By ensuring identical periods are used, there can be no argument that
differing periods cause incompatibility or any form of loopholes. Maybe
that's not a concern for compatibility with ARIN today, but it might be
tomorrow with another RIR. In any case, it shouldn't hurt compatibility
with ARIN's policy, right?

>> 3) I think it would be more flexible to not require the usage plan to be
>> presented to the NCC, but that it could be presented to the other RIR
>> instead. My reasoning is that the other RIR might already have the forms
>> and criteria ready for performing need evaluation in a way that's
>> (obviously) "compatible" with that RIR's own policies, while the NCC
>> might not.
> 
> Once the RIPE Inter-RIR transfer policy is determined to be needs-based and 
> compatible, then processing of individual requests can easily be handled by 
> RIPE NCC without any need for sharing of requesters information with other 
> parties. This works quite well quite Inter-RIR transfers between APNIC and 
> the ARIN region today, whereas there are likely to be potential implementation 
> issues with your proposed approach that would need to be carefully explored; 
> for example, ARIN has no relationship to a requestor in the RIPE region, no
> non-disclosure agreement, etc.

Good point about the NDA. You're right, let's not go there.

Then I have:

«For transfers from RIR regions which require the RIPE region to have
needs-based policies, recipients must provide a plan to the RIPE NCC for
the use of the transferred resource within the time period defined by
the transfer policy of the other RIR».

Like I said before, it would be good to have an indication from you or
another ARIN official on whether or not this would indeed be deemed as
compatible with ARIN's inter-region transfer policy. That way, hopefully
this WG won't have to do too many iterations of 2014-05 before settling
on a piece of text that works for everyone involved.

>> Therefore it could potentially be easier for all involved
>> parties if the other RIR performs the required need evaluation (if that
>> RIR and the NCC agrees on such a transfer procedure, that is). It might
>> also help prevent possibly complaints from the other region that the NCC
>> doesn't perform stringent enough evaluation, and so on.
> 
> I believe that all of the RIRs must rely on each other for faithful 
> implementation of policy, but again, this has not been a problem for
> other Inter-RIR transfers to/from the ARIN region.

I was not really referring to ARIN-the-RIR here, but rather individuals
participating in the ARIN community, who might end up with an impression
(misguided or not) that the starving RIPE region ISPs are looting ARIN's
fat IPv4 stores while the RIPE NCC looks the other way...

Tore