[146326] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers - Last Call (expires in one
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Leo Bicknell)
Wed Nov 9 10:57:58 2011
Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2011 07:56:33 -0800
From: Leo Bicknell <bicknell@ufp.org>
To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Mail-Followup-To: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
In-Reply-To: <9F539F99-00A2-4478-9218-4E795C710C52@corp.arin.net>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
--ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In a message written on Wed, Nov 09, 2011 at 03:33:04PM +0000, John Curran =
wrote:
>=20
> There is an Draft Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers presently in extended
> "Last Call" in the ARIN Policy Development Process. The Last Call
> will run for one more week, and allows an opportunity for anyone in t=
he
> Internet community to provide feedback regarding this proposed
> number resource policy. Feedback, including statements in support
I went and read a fair number of PPML messages via the web interface
as I no longer subscribe. I also read the policy proposal.
I think the AC, and ARIN's policy process in general has come off
the rails. There's a reason why I unsubscribed from PPML, and have
not participated for 2+ years. I don't know exactly where things
went wrong, but somewhere they went very, very wrong.
But I don't have to summarize, Bill Sandiford (an AC Member) already
did that for me:
http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-November/023661.html
Which leads me to my thoughts on the process, from two areas:
1) The concept of Inter-RIR transfers is a bad idea. Insuring
"compatible" rules between RIR's will always be difficult at
best. There are technical difficulties for the RIR's, such
as how reverse DNS is handled. Most importantly, after going
through all the pain of figuring out these details it's unlikely
to help very many people at all.
2) The process followed to get here is totally broken. Bill hit
the nail on the head, and it's archived on ARIN's web site:
Text in Sep: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-September/02=
3170.html
Text in Oct: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2011-October/0233=
62.html
Near as I can tell the feedback in the October meeting made the
AC want to do a _total rewrite of the entire policy_, which they
turned around in under a week and shoved directly into the last
call process.
It's disgusting, and I'm glad I'm no longer involved. It's a mockery of
the policy process ARIN has set up, and I'm baffled to this day why more
folks aren't upset about it.
--=20
Leo Bicknell - bicknell@ufp.org - CCIE 3440
PGP keys at http://www.ufp.org/~bicknell/
--ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v2.0.18 (FreeBSD)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=RA0b
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--ZGiS0Q5IWpPtfppv--
