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

[Scott Leibrand]

On Wed, Aug 24, 2011 at 12:53 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN Advisory
> Council (AC) held a meeting on 18 August 2011 and made decisions about
> several proposals.

And here are my monthly comments.  As always, my opinions only, not
speaking for anyone else.

> The AC selected the following proposals as draft policies for adoption
> discussion online and at the ARIN XXVIII Public Policy Meeting in
> Philadelphia in October. The draft policies will be posted shortly to the
> PPML.
>
>  ARIN-prop-137 Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms
> by the IANA

I support this proposal.  IMO it is necessary to avoid stranding IPv4
space at the IANA.

>  ARIN-prop-144 Remove Single Aggregate requirement from Specified Transfer

I support this proposal, because I feel it is important that our
transfer policy match up with organizations' actual needs.  I would
also support language that requires transfers be performed on the
minimum number of CIDR blocks or address ranges required to transfer
the correct amount of space.

>  ARIN-prop-146 Clarify Justified Need for Transfers

I support this proposal.  I believe it is a very necessary
clarification and simplification of existing policy intent.

>  ARIN-prop-147 Set Transfer Need to 24 months

I support this proposal.  Once IPv4 address needs are primarily being
met via transfers, I believe it is important to allow organizations to
meet more than a year's worth of need at a time.

>  ARIN-prop-155 IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region

I oppose the current text, but voted to bring it to Philadelphia for
discussion, as I believe the issue is important, and that policy
clarity here might be beneficial.

> The following proposals were not selected as draft policies at this time:
>
>  ARIN-prop-151 Limiting needs requirements for IPv4 Transfers
>
> The AC as a whole felt that the text of proposal 151 was not ready enough to
> move forward to draft policy. The AC is hoping to gain more input through
> the PPML and at the upcoming Public Policy Meeting.

I don't support the current text, but voted to bring it to
Philadelphia for discussion, as I believe it raises a number of issues
that we need community input on.  Obviously the majority of the AC
disagreed and felt it wasn't ready for discussion.

>  ARIN-prop-153 Correct erroneous syntax in NRPM 8.3
>
> Since ARIN-Prop-153 was in direct conflict with ARIN-Prop-144, which the
> AC had already advanced to Draft Policy status and adoption discussion on
> PPML and at the next Public Policy Meeting in Philadelphia, the motion to
> select ARIN-Prop-153 as Draft Policy did not carry. Since there was no
> motion to abandon and in accordance with the ARIN Policy Development
> Process, ARIN-Prop-153 remains on the AC's docket.

I don't support this language, but felt it would be best to have this
proposal on the docket in Philadelphia as an alternative to
ARIN-Prop-144.  Obviously the majority of the AC disagreed.

> The AC abandoned the following proposals:
>
>  ARIN-prop-149 Improved Transparency for Directed Transfers
>
> The AC feels that proposal 149 belongs in the consultation and suggestion
> process as it is a recommendation to staff to publish a list and is not
> addressing policy. The author has been advised of the AC's abandon action
> and has already submitted this to the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion
> Process (ACSP).

I don't feel strongly either way about which venue this should be discussed in.

>  ARIN-prop-152 RSA Modification Limits
>
> The AC feels that based upon the Clarity and Understanding from
> Staff, proposal 152 is inappropriate for the NRPM. The author has
> been advised of the AC's abandon action.

Agreed.

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

And wholeheartedly agreed, as always!

-Scott