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

[Martin Hannigan]

On Wed, Jan 25, 2012 at 3:57 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibrand at gmail.com> 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.


Similiar reasons here except with 2011-12 I think the window should
have been extended to 36 or even 60 months. 24 is an ok start.

>> 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.


I mostly agree, but I don't think that the 3 month rule is doing
anything but causing additional damage to v6 transition efforts and
increasing cost of operating our networks. I doubt that the use rate
would accelerate until near the end of the supply, the last perceived
quarter. At this point, cost should be the main concern and moving
this back to 12mos and matching it to a local condition vs. a
condition elsewhere is rational.


>
> 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.
>

I'm not sure that the AC actually did it's job with this proposal. I
was the author so I have an interest in this, but at a basic level the
existing policy allows an unlimited amount of entities including ARIN
to audit not only the space that the network being asked provided, but
any other space provided whether or not its connected to them. ARIN is
regulated in their audits under Section 12. Others are not. Also, and
as many have agreed in the past, Section 12 is adequate and we've
resisted efforts to change it since most realize that being subject to
a Section 12 audit is both costly and extremely time consuming. The
result of this policy is also an impediment to aggregation. Pushing
need away from PA to PI increases dis-aggregation. So there were
sufficient components here to at least have had serious consideration,
cost, aggregation, ARIN's responsibilities, etc. Two concerns were
stated as reasons to abandon during our discussion. The first was that
the "title was misleading". It had been established that the AC could
opt to change the title of a proposal so may not be a valid reason to
abandon and then the reason stated above is weak. The second was a
fear of 'address kiting', something that should be able to be caught
easily in Section 12 audits.

Coupled with the split vote closely along industry sectors, perhaps it
is worthy of a petition.


Best,

-M<