On Oct 17, 2014, at 8:29 AM, sandrabrown@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