ARIN-PPML Message

[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - March 2011

The minutes from the ARIN Advisory Council's March 17 meeting have
been published:

https://www.arin.net/about_us/ac/ac2011_0317.html

> Proposals 132, 133, 134, 135, and 136 were abandoned
> and as such may be petitioned (Discussion Petition) to try to change
> them into draft policies for adoption discussion on the Public Policy
> Mailing List and at the ARIN XXVIII (October 2011) Public Policy Meeting
> (March 7 was the deadline for petitions for the upcoming meeting in San
> Juan). The deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after
> the AC's draft meeting minutes are published.

The petition deadline is 13 April 2011.

Regards,

Communications and Member Services
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)




ARIN wrote:
> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN
> Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 17 March 2011 and made decisions
> about several policy proposals.
>
> The AC abandoned the following proposals:
>
>   ARIN-prop-132 ISP Sub-assignments Do Not Require Specific Customer
> Relationships
>
>   ARIN-prop-133 No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address
> Blocks
>
>   ARIN-prop-134 Identification of Legitimate Address Holders
>
>   ARIN-prop-135 Clarification of draft policy 2009-3
>
>   ARIN-prop-136 Services Opt-out Allowed for Unaffiliated Address Blocks
>
> The AC voted to abandon ARIN-prop-132 for the following reasons:
>   - Aggregation is one of the goals of addressing stewardship, this
> policy  encourages deaggregation, and accelerates routing table growth.
>   - Creates a situation where the ISP providing the address space is
> not in a position to remediate security and abuse issues which may have
> significant impact on the larger internet community.
>   - The AC believes that a discussion about how staff currently handles
> this situation is worth having, and suggests the author or a member of
> the community submit it as an Open Policy hour topic at the upcoming
> ARIN meeting.
>
> ARIN-prop-133 was abandoned by the AC because there was not significant
> support for it on PPML and because the proposal as written is not
> something that could be implemented under the existing circumstances
> (ICANN MOU, ARIN structure, and the fact that there is no provision for
> "alternate" registries in any existing documents, RFCs, or other
> approved structures).
>
> The AC has chosen to abandon ARIN-prop-134. Aside from the author, there
> were no statements of support on the mailing list, and the majority of
> opinion questioned the problem to be solved. While wording can often be
> refined during the policy development process, the problem statement
> itself needs further clarification. The abandonment of this proposal is
> not to dismiss the discussion. It would just be clearer to refine the
> problem statement first and submit a proposal if more clarity and
> support can be reached on the mailing list.
>
> The AC abandoned ARIN-prop-135 because: a. The original author wished to
> withdraw it, and  b. The proposal was an attempt to clarify policy. If
> policy is to be changed, the policy itself needs to be rewritten, not
> clarified.
>
> The AC voted to abandon ARIN-prop-136 for the following reasons:
> - Overwhelming lack of support within the ARIN community, as evidenced
> by discussion on the PPML.
> - ARIN staff has indicated that they do not believe that it is
> possible to implement this policy due to existing agreements, namely
> they can not not-serve our community.
> -   Today folks have the option of opting out of swip by using RWHOIS
> and providing ARIN information about the location of the RHWOIS service
> to publish in the SWIP record.  This hasn't always gone so well, not all
> RWHOIS services are kept up to date and publicly available.  Providing
> another mechanism for folks to opt out of having records published
> publicly in a centralized location, is not in the best interest of the
> community, as it would complicate abuse, security and law enforcement
> investigations.
>   The AC encourages further discussion of this topic and would be happy
> to work with anyone who believes policy changes in this area are
> needed.
>
> The Advisory Council appreciates the involvement of all community
> members who provide input toward a complete discussion of policy
> proposals. The AC especially wishes to thank those authors of policy
> proposals for their efforts in helping the community address possible
> improvements.
>
> The PDP states, “Any member of the community, including a proposal
> originator, may initiate a Discussion Petition if they are dissatisfied
> with the action taken by the Advisory Council regarding any specific
> policy proposal.” Proposals 132, 133, 134, 135, and 136 were abandoned
> and as such may be petitioned (Discussion Petition) to try to change
> them into draft policies for adoption discussion on the Public Policy
> Mailing List and at the ARIN XXVIII (October 2011) Public Policy Meeting
> (March 7 was the deadline for petitions for the upcoming meeting in San
> Juan). The deadline to begin a petition will be five business days after
> the AC's draft meeting minutes are published.
>
> For more information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP
> Petitions at: https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html
>
> Draft Policy and Policy Proposal texts are available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>
>
>
>
>
>
>