ARIN-PPML Message

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

A few personal opinions on the items the AC considered inline below...

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 1:48 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process the ARIN Advisory
> Council (AC) held a meeting on 16 June 2011 and made decisions about
> several proposals.
>
> The following proposals have been added to the AC's docket for
> development and evaluation:
>
>  ARIN-prop-149 Improved Transparency for Directed Transfers

Transfer market transparency is good.  :-)

>  ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 Transfers

I'm not sure about this text, but I think it needs to be discussed in
Philadelphia.

>  ARIN-prop-152 RSA Modification Limits

I'm not sure about this text either, but I think it's reasonable for
the community to express our collective opinion on how far ARIN should
go in modifying the RSA, and I think this is the right vehicle for
discussing that in Philly.

>  ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3

I don't support this proposal, but I think it's good to have this on
the agenda in Philly as a counterpoint to the "remove single
aggregate" proposal.

> The AC abandoned the following proposals:
>
>  ARIN-prop-148 LRSA resources must not be transferred to LRSA
>  ARIN-prop-150 Reclamation Hold
>
> Proposal 148 was abandoned because the majority of the AC members feel that
> which legal agreement ARIN uses with a resource requester is a business
> matter. It is indeed the case, however, that if the community feels there
> should be certain policy requirements for what is in an RSA, LRSA or similar
> document that those could be specified in policy. This would require ARIN to
> put those items in any agreement where applicable and allowed by law.  The
> AC felt that ARIN-prop-152 was an example of such a policy proposal, and
> voted to accept it onto the AC's docket for further development.
>
> The Advisory Council has abandoned Proposal 150 based on the merits of the
> proposal and the author's stated desired to have it withdrawn.

I agree with both those explanations.

> The AC thanks the authors and the community for their continuing effort
> and contributions to these and all other policy considerations.

And wholeheartedly agree with this.  :-)

-Scott