[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2011
In order to help address Bill's concerns, I thought I'd try posting to the
list an explanation of my own personal thoughts and opinions on each of the
proposals and draft policies the AC voted on at our most recent meeting.
(I'm speaking only for myself, not for the AC.) Please let me know whether
or not you find this useful.
On Thu, Feb 3, 2011 at 1:44 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN
> Advisory Council (AC) held a meeting on 28 January 2011 and made
> decisions about several draft policies and proposals.
> The AC recommended that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt the following
> draft policy:
> ARIN-2010-14: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements
I feel that this proposal is a step in the right direction toward consistent
registration requirements for IPv6, and also meets a legitimate need with
regard to non-cable ISPs assigning address space to residential market
areas. I saw quite a bit of community support for the policy, and very
little opposition, so I voted to send it to the Board.
> The AC selected the following proposals as draft policies for adoption
> discussion online and at the ARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting in San
> Juan, Puerto Rico. Each draft policy will be posted shortly to the PPML.
> ARIN-prop-119. Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy
I believe this is a policy that will become increasingly necessary as the
different RIRs exhaust their IPv4 free pools at different rates, and we see
the effect of varying levels of IPv4 supply and demand in different regions'
transfer markets, so I voted to bring this up for discussion in San Juan.
> ARIN-prop-120. Protecting Number Resources
This seems to be necessary if we want ARIN to proactively look for abandoned
or fraudulently obtained resources. Doing so seems like a good idea, and
there seems to be quite a bit of community support for some level of
proactive effort here.
> ARIN-prop-121. Better IPv6 Allocation for ISPs
I'm generally in favor of the goals of this policy, and believe it needs
wider discussion at the public policy meeting to determine whether we want
to adopt something along these lines.
> ARIN-prop-123. Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure
There seems to be a fair bit of community support for this idea. The amount
of address space required for CI reservations would be small, so I felt this
was worthy of discussion.
> ARIN-prop-127. Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension
This is a very timely proposal with a lot of community support. I am
undecided as to whether it's necessary, but definitely feel it needs to be
discussed in Puerto Rico.
> The AC added the following proposal to their docket but decided not to
> select it as a draft policy at this time:
> ARIN-prop-126. Compliance Requirement
I believe the goals behind this proposal are sound, and would like to see it
discussed further by the community. There are some definite concerns around
the exact structure and text of the proposal that still need to be worked
on. I voted to select it as a draft policy, because I believe those can be
worked out before the April meeting, but the majority of the AC disagreed,
and voted not to select it for adoption discussion at this time.
> The AC abandoned the following proposals:
> ARIN-prop-128. Replacement of Section 126.96.36.199
As already discussed in this thread, I felt this proposal is not needed (due
to the small number of organizations with requests in process at any given
time), and that it had been overtaken by events (since IANA exhaustion was
going to occur just days after our meeting). Since I don't believe
emergency Board action was warranted, I feel abandonment was the proper
ARIN-prop-129. IPv4 Addresses for Process Participants
> ARIN-prop-130. IPv4 Transition Reservation for Every ASN
It wasn't clear to me whether these policy proposals were serious, or made
in jest, but either way they did not warrant further work by the AC or
further consideration by the community.
> The AC abandoned ARIN-prop-128 due to opposition on the list, and
> because there is insufficient time to implement the proposal through the
> normal PDP. As a result, the proposal would need to be a Board Emergency
> PDP action to have any effect. The AC understands that the use of the
> emergency process requires that there be significant risk to ARIN should
> the Board allow a situation to continue. This matter does not warrant
> the use of the emergency process.
> The AC abandoned ARIN-prop-129 and ARIN-prop-130 because they violate
> the community principle of needs-based assignments.
> 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 126, 128, 129 and 130 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 April
> Public Policy Meeting. 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:
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...