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

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Tue Mar 13 16:09:28 EDT 2012


On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 12:37 PM, ARIN <info at arin.net> wrote:

> In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process, the ARIN Advisory
> Council (AC) held a meeting on 8 March 2012 and made decisions about
> several proposals.
>
> The AC selected the following proposals as draft policies for adoption
> discussion online and at the ARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting in
> Vancouver in April. The draft policies will be posted shortly to the PPML.
>
>  ARIN-prop-157 Section 8.3 Simplification
>

This is a revised version that the AC also retitled to "ASN transfers".
 The revised draft policy text is short enough to post here:

In NRPM 8.3, replace "IPv4 number resources" with "IPv4 number resources
and ASNs".


I personally feel that while there is not a compelling need to be able to
transfer ASNs as there was/is with IPv4 addresses, that there are
legitimate use cases, and very few downsides that I can see to allowing it.


>  ARIN-prop-162 Redefining request window in 4.2.4.4
>

This was also re-titled to "Return to 12 Month Supply and Reset Trigger to
/8 in Free Pool".

In my opinion we have (perhaps unintentionally) achieved somewhat of a
"soft landing" with the current policy that allows for 3 month allocations
from the free pool and 24 months worth of space via transfer.  I don't
think moving back to a 12 month free pool supply will be helpful, but I
voted to put this on the agenda for Vancouver because I think we need to
have a full discussion on it.


> The AC abandoned the following proposal:
>
>  ARIN-prop-165 Eliminate Needs-Based Justification on 8.3 Specified
> Transfers
>


The AC provided the following statement about prop-165:
> "Based on  significant community opposition to the removal of the needs
> requirement in 8.3 transfers, the AC  chose to abandon proposal 165. While
> the author has brought to light privately additional issues, most of them
> are procedural in nature and would require a complete rewrite of both the
> policy and rationale text well beyond the original proposal's intent. The
> AC feels that there is merit in the discussion of these issues, and
> suggests that the author look at more specific issues outside of removal of
> needs, that could be applied  to new proposal submissions."
>

I was in the minority here, largely because I think this is an important
issue that should be discussed at the public policy meeting.  (I was not in
favor of putting this particular text up for adoption discussion, and in
any event, it was received too late to make the timeline for Vancouver).

Given that the majority of the AC (and the community) opposed this
particular text, I would agree with the statement above that "The AC feels
that there is merit in the discussion of these issues, and suggests that
the author look at more specific issues outside of removal of needs, that
could be applied  to new proposal submissions."  I look forward to having
such discussion at upcoming meeting(s) and working towards a consensus
proposal for how to assess needs basis on transfers, particularly after the
free pool is empty.


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

Agreed!  I'd particularly like to thank those new contributors (and
long-term silent list readers) who've gotten involved and spoken up
recently.

-Scott
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20120313/8ff03f3c/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list