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

[Owen DeLong]

On Jan 25, 2012, at 12:57 PM, Scott Leibrand wrote:

> 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.
> 

I voted against both of these for the same reasons I have outlined before. However, I agree that they had some community support and accept and support the decision of the Advisory Council.

>> 
>> 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.
> 

I voted to abandon. In addition to the lack of merit in the proposal, the misleading title, and the vague and useless rationale, I felt that the policy change proposed would have harmful effects on IPv4 number resource policy. The proposal also would create an asymmetrical benefit for a very small subset of the ARIN resource holding community which is inconsistent with good stewardship of the address space.

Owen