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

[John Curran]

On Apr 8, 2011, at 7:27 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:

> In the minutes of the 17-Mar AC meeting, as published, there is a comment by John Curran noted under the discussion of ARIN-Prop-133:
> 
> "JC stated that in proposals 133 and 134, there is a question of the concept of an independent registry. He explained that ARIN started staff and legal review on these early, because we felt it was necessary. If these proposals are on the AC’s docket, JC stated that he was arranging to meet with the author for a staff and legal review discussion of these proposals."
> 
> Unfortunately, John did not attend our scheduled meeting, and I have not seen the staff and legal review.  The only context I have, beyond the AC meeting minutes, is the staff's "clarity and understanding" questions - it would be useful to see their conclusions, as well.  Can ARIN provide the staff assessment and legal review, either directly to me or to the PPML?  It is difficult to evaluate John's comments, and determine how much effort to put into these proposals going forward, without seeing this material.

The staff and legal review was started early (per the PDP it is usually started upon AC
request in Draft Policy phase)   As noted in the minutes, "If these proposals are on the 
AC’s  docket, JC stated that he was arranging to meet with the author for a staff and
legal review discussion of these proposals."

The staff and legal review stopped when the AC abandoned the proposals.  As I noted,
I regret I was unable to meet, for if we had, I would have related the same information in 
the two paragraphs which follow your extract from the AC minutes:

"JC stated that in proposals 133 and 134, there is a question of the concept of an independent registry. He explained that ARIN started staff and legal review on these early, because we felt it was necessary. If these proposals are on the AC’s docket, JC stated that he was arranging to meet with the author for a staff and legal review discussion of these proposals.  ARIN is required to serve the number resources in the region per ICANN ICP-2, and that either subordinate registries in the ARIN region or a revised ICP-2 with some other structure would first be needed be accepted by the community before we can fairly consider policies which postulate the existence of alternate registries in this region.  

Furthermore, he said, at inception ARIN expressed a commitment to both the US Gov. and to ISP community that we would serve the existing number registrations "as-is".  To some extent, this creates a separate pre-existing ethical obligation to provide services to number registrations within our region. There can be policy changes, but changing this practice by completing abandoning service would require active consideration by the ARIN Board regarding how this obligation may evolve."

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN