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

[Martin Hannigan]

Benson, all,

The shepherding breakdown lies with this proposal is my responsibility
so that it is clear. I thought that more time was available. I was
wrong. I did request more time be allotted as Benson notes, but did
not know what the proper motion would be to ask for that. That won't
happen again.

Best,

-M<



On 4/10/11, Benson Schliesser <bensons at queuefull.net> wrote:
>
> On Apr 10, 2011, at 4:48 AM, John Curran wrote:
>
>>> 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".
>> ...
>> Are you suggesting that "an authoritative directory service" and
>> "replacement directory service" do not reference registries that
>> would be independent of ARIN?
>
> The words "replacement directory service" neither exclude or require
> alternative registries.  For instance, an address holder that operates a
> rwhois server is providing a directory service yet is not inherently a
> registry.
>
> In fact, this rwhois example is a primary use-case that I had in mind when
> writing the proposal.  I would have welcomed the opportunity to discuss
> this, if the AC had given the shepherds more time to discuss the text with
> me rather than denying their request.
>
>>> 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.
>
> Do I understand you correctly, that the ARIN Board of Trustees has given you
> direction that "ARIN is unable to not serve resources in the ARIN region" at
> this time?
>
> In either case, can you be more specific about your presence at ARIN's
> formation - what is the source of your comments that "ARIN is required to
> serve" and "ARIN is unable to not serve resources in the ARIN region"?
>
> Thanks,
> -Benson
>
>