[address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document and ImpactAnalysis Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space)

I brokered the first two Inter-regional transfers, both involving a sale of 
ARIN addresses to APNIC buyers.

I shepherded the transaction through both RIRs in my role as a registered 
broker in both RIRs, and my impression was that the amount of extra work was 
minimal. There was some tweaking of a transfer template required, and after 
the initial transfer, the APNIC Whois record incorrectly referred to the 
addresses as having been part of the ERX process.  That was quickly 
addressed, and the entire transfer process took about a week.

Of course this extra effort on the part of ARIN and APNIC enriched me in my 
role as a broker, and if that's all it did, then McTim would have an 
accurate point. However my client, who had already received his maximum /22 
from APNIC, was able to continue to grow, so he benefited. And the increased 
supply of addresses available in Asia as a result of the ability to transfer 
from ARIN has resulted in lower prices in the ARIN/APNIC market than in the 
RIPE market, where prices are higher. The inclusion of RIPE into the global 
market will lower prices due to increased supply, and this benefit will 
inure to all RIPE buyers. And of course many in Asia see it as a fairness 
thing, with ARIN having gotten the lion's share of addresses it is viewed as 
only fair that they have access to that ARIN abundance.

http://www.circleid.com/posts/ipv6_transitional_uncertainties/

In this article, Geoff Huston asks the question:
What's the level of risk that the differing environments of transition lead 
to significantly different outcomes in each region as the process of 
transition takes of a different momentum in different regions? And if this 
eventuates will we still have a single coherent Internet as a common asset, 
or will we find that market forces interact in unpredictable ways that 
create different outcomes in each region?

One way to minimize the risk of uneven runout is to facilitate a global 
transfer market.

I support the proposal.

Regards,
Mike Burns
IPTrading.com




-----Original Message----- 
From: McTim
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2013 9:42 AM
To: Gert Doering
Cc: address-policy-wg at ripe.net
Subject: Re: [address-policy-wg] 2012-02 New Draft Document and 
ImpactAnalysis Published (Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address 
Space)

Hi Gert,

Opposed.

I see this as potentially creating a good deal of admin overhead for
the RIRs, which will impact all LIRs, while the upside will only be
for those few who want to further commoditise Internet numbering
resources.

the relevant bits of the impact analysis are quoted below:


"C. Impact of Policy on RIPE NCC Operations/Services
Registration Services:
It is very relevant to note that the implementation of this policy
proposal will require a significant effort of co-ordination between
the RIPE NCC and the other RIRs. It is unclear at the moment how much
time and resources will be needed to fully implement the proposal.
.
.
D. Legal Impact of Policy
If this policy proposal will be accepted, the RIPE NCC will need to
create appropriate legal procedures and template agreements in order
for all parties to understand and agree on the preconditions and the
consequences of the transfer in accordance with the provisions of this
policy."


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A
route indicates how we get there."  Jon Postel


On Mon, Mar 11, 2013 at 8:47 AM, Gert Doering <gert at space.net> wrote:
> Dear AP WG members,
>
> On Mon, Mar 04, 2013 at 02:46:03PM +0100, Emilio Madaio wrote:
>> The draft document for the version 2.0 of the proposal 2012-02,
>> "Policy for Inter-RIR Transfers of IPv4 Address Space", has been
>> published. The impact analysis that was conducted for this proposal
>> has also been published.
> [..]
>> You can find the full proposal and the impact analysis at:
>>
>>     https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02
>>
>> and the draft document at:
>>
>>     https://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2012-02/draft
>>
>> We encourage you to read the draft document text and send any comments
>> to address-policy-wg at ripe.net before 18 March 2013.
>
> Let me remind you again that we need your explicit voice of support if
> you want to see this proposal implemented.  (If you do *not* want that,
> an explicit voice of opposition would be helpful, too).
>
> "No response" is making our lives as WG chairs somewhat difficult - it 
> will
> lead to "extention of the review period", and then after some more months
> to "asking the proposer to drop the proposal due to lack of support"...
>
> Gert Doering
>         -- APWG chair
> --
> have you enabled IPv6 on something today...?
>
> SpaceNet AG                        Vorstand: Sebastian v. Bomhard
> Joseph-Dollinger-Bogen 14          Aufsichtsratsvors.: A. 
> Grundner-Culemann
> D-80807 Muenchen                   HRB: 136055 (AG Muenchen)
> Tel: +49 (89) 32356-444            USt-IdNr.: DE813185279
>