<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><br class=""><div><br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class="">On Oct 8, 2021, at 16:09 , Fernando Frediani <<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" class="">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class=""><p class="">Owen, I think you may be too poisoned about your view about staff
and your exotic view on how the current policies should apply to
this topic, so some of your points may be considered more a desire
than what it really is.</p></div></div></blockquote>I disagree… Any so-called poison comes from my direct experience dealing with staff on the matter.</div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">I don't quiet agree that this type of thing should not go under a
proper analysis of the staff and as you may guess we will not
always have a binary scenario for them to analyze. So your desire
to remove this from them cannot work properly. Good or bad there
is always a certain amount of subjectivity and in theory that is
to protect African resources from being send out of the region if
there is something that should stop that from happening. The most
important thing in my view is that resources as protected from
mismanagement and be allowed to be transferred when it should not.</p></div></div></blockquote>I’m all for a proper analysis of the staff. I did not call for removing 5.7.5, I called for limiting its scope to those things</div><div>which can be objectively quantified and not leaving it subject to the whims of staff deciding that because they dislike</div><div>a particular (potential) registrant, they can disqualify a transfer without a hard basis in objective and factual criteria.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>I’m not trying to eliminate scrutiny of transfers, just trying to prevent abuses by staff. The problem with the idea of</div><div>“mismanagement” in general is that different people define that term differently. It’s inherently subjective and that’s</div><div>a problem. Policy outcomes should be predictable, deterministic, and fair. Policies that leave wide latitude for staff</div><div>discretion are inherently non-deterministic, unpredictable and thus unfair.</div><div><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">
I would love to have binary, exact and mathematical thing for most
things on life, but that reality is not like that.</p></div></div></blockquote>Sure, but where judgment calls must be made, they should be as liberal as possible within the constraints of policy.</div><div>To date, AFRINIC has been the opposite, going even beyond the policy mandate to create problems where policy does</div><div>not actually prohibit actions they deem to be in violation.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>As such, their track record of extreme bad judgment means that policies must be written conservatively to protect the</div><div>community and resource holders from their over-zealous and incorrect actions.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">I am not sure as well the policy should include non RIR members
that may only exist in ARIN due this weird different things work
out there.</p></div></div></blockquote>Why would you want to write an inter-RIR transfer policy that precludes transfers in from the most prolific source of address resources?</div><div>It makes no sense. Almost none of the legacy resource holders in the ARIN region (the primary source of transferrable resources) are</div><div>ARIN members. I believe that is true in some other RIRs as well.<br class=""><blockquote type="cite" class=""><div class=""><div class=""><p class="">With that said I am not saying I agree with this proposal as
written at this point.</p></div></div></blockquote>OK, so let me get this straight… You don’t support the proposal, but you’re objecting to my objections.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>OK. That’s amusing.</div><div><br class=""></div><div>Owen</div><div><br class=""></div><br class=""></body></html>