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

Benson Schliesser bensons at queuefull.net
Sat Apr 9 14:22:05 EDT 2011

Hi, John.

On Apr 8, 2011, at 8:38 PM, John Curran wrote:
> On Apr 8, 2011, at 7:27 PM, Benson Schliesser wrote:
>> Can ARIN provide the staff assessment and legal review, either directly to me or to the PPML? 
> ...
> The staff and legal review stopped when the AC abandoned the proposals. 

Thanks for explaining this.  Because the staff and legal reviews were not completed, I will assume that your comments in the AC minutes reflect your own views and not the output of ARIN's counsel.

> "JC stated that in proposals 133 and 134, 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.

> 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.

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

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.


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list