[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - January 2012

[Scott Leibrand]

As I often do, here are my own personal opinions on the policies and
proposals below.  As always, I'm speaking for myself, not the AC.

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 10:00 AM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:
> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN Advisory
> Council (AC) held a meeting on 20 January 2012 and made decisions about
> several draft policies and proposals.
>
> The AC recommended the following draft policies to the ARIN Board for
> adoption:
>
>  ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers
>  ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months

I believe both of these are useful policies, and were well supported
in Philadelphia.  I supported sending them to the Board.

> The following proposal was added to the AC's docket for development and
> evaluation:
>
>  ARIN-prop-161 Normalize Free pool and Transfer justification periods

Personally I think the existing policy that allows organizations to
get up to a 3-month supply of addresses from ARIN's free pool is good
policy.  As noted earlier, I would also be fine if the 3-month
restriction didn't go into effect until we get down to one /8 left in
the free pool, but I don't see the discrepancy between the 3-month
supply criterion for the free pool, and the 12-month (soon to be
24-month) criterion for the transfer market, as problematic.

That said, I do think this issue should be discussed at an upcoming
Public Policy meeting, so I voted to put it on the docket.

> The AC abandoned the following proposal:
>
>  ARIN-prop-160 Clarification of Section 4.2.3.4.1. Utilization
>
> Regarding proposal 160, the AC stated, "This proposal represented a
> significant change to the justification requirements in 4.2.3.4.1 for
> receiving PA space. The AC did not see significant support for such a change
> on PPML, and felt the proposal was not justified at this time."

I agree with the statement above, but I still voted against
abandonment to give the author and ARIN staff more time to work
through the clarity and understanding step of the PDP.  Given that the
plurality of the AC disagreed with me, it looks to me like the best
way forward is to resubmit a revised proposal based on the feedback
received so far.

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

Heartily agreed, as always.

-Scott

> The AC abandoned proposal 160. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may
> initiate a petition. The petition to advance this proposal would be the
> "Discussion Petition." The deadline to begin a petition will be five
> business days after the AC's draft meeting minutes are published. For more
> information on starting and participating in petitions, see PDP Petitions
> at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp_petitions.html
>
> Draft Policy and Proposal texts are available at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/index.html
>
> The ARIN Policy Development Process can be found at:
> https://www.arin.net/policy/pdp.html
>
> Regards,
>
> Communications and Member Services
> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
> _______________________________________________
> PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.