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

[John Curran]

On Apr 9, 2011, at 2:22 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> "there is a question of the concept of an independent registry."
> This topic is mentioned in the AC meeting notes regarding both ARIN-Prop-133 and ARIN-Prop-136, but is a misrepresentation.  Neither proposal introduces an "independent registry". 
> In the proposal text, the word "registry" is only used in the context of ARIN's services.  Thus, the AC was misled by your contribution to their discussion.


You are correct that the words "independent registry" do not appear; 
The phrases used are "an authoritative directory service" and a 
"replacement directory service" in ARIN-prop-133 and ARIN-prop-136 
respectively, and these phrases would have made better references 
in the minutes.

Are you suggesting that "an authoritative directory service" and 
"replacement directory service" do not reference registries that
would be independent of ARIN?  Are these references in the policy
proposals references to registries of a subsidiary structure, such as 
exists today in the Domain name space with registries and registrars?  

>> 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."
> 
> I respect your comments about "ethical obligation" to legacy holders.  Combined with legitimate concerns over the strength of Whois data, I believe there is a valid reason to abandon ARIN-Prop-133.  I do not intend to petition for this proposal.

Not petitioning is a choice available to you for the abandoned proposals.

> However, your other comments are unjustified.  Foremost, per my comments above, there is no alternative registry structure required by ARIN-Prop-136.

As the ARIN-prop-136 policy text includes the following:

   "In order for an opt-out request for Whois directory services to be
    valid, the legitimate address holder must agree to provide a replacement
    directory service reflecting operationally accurate allocation and
    assignment information for the specified IP number resources.  "

Is your statement that "there is no alternative registry structure required 
by ARIN-Prop-136" based on the "replacement directory services" in the text 
not being "alternative", or perhaps the replacement directory services are 
"alternative" registries but not part of an "alternative registry structure"?  

> Further, in regard to a similar Policy Proposal 2007-15 the ARIN General Counsel wrote "Currently I am unaware of any contractually binding or implied duty of ARIN to maintain such service" which seems to contradict your statement that "ARIN is required to serve" all number resources in the region.  (The complete proposal and review can be read at http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2007-October/009467.html if you wish.)
> 
> In the context of proposal 136, your statements go even further than the above context.  As noted in the minutes, you said "ARIN is unable to not serve resources in the ARIN region" - rather than an obligation to serve, you're suggesting that address holders in the ARIN region have an obligation to submit to ARIN policy.  I am not a lawyer, but I agree with your counsel and find nothing to support your claim.

I was present at ARIN's formation, and my comments stand.  Revisiting ARIN's role 
in these services would ultimately be the decision of the ARIN Board of Trustees, 
as I also previously stated.  For example, such changes could be the result of 
evolution in the structure of the Internet number registry system, per the global 
policy processes. 

> Thus, I'm concerned that the AC was incorrectly influenced by your comments during their March meeting.  This will be in my thoughts, as I consider whether to petition for discussion of ARIN-Prop-136.

Petitioning is another choice available to you for the abandoned proposals.  

/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN