[arin-ppml] Proposal 204 Submitted, Registry Accuracy Proposal

John Curran jcurran at arin.net
Sun Feb 16 11:26:47 EST 2014

On Feb 15, 2014, at 6:24 PM, Martin Hannigan <hannigan at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Feb 15, 2014 at 4:54 PM, John Curran <jcurran at arin.net> wrote:
>> Policy proposals that are determined by the AC to lack clarity are remanded
>> back
>> to the originator along with an explanation of the areas needing
>> improvements in
>> clarity. The proposal originator revises the Policy Proposal based on the
>> feedback
>> received, and again offers the revised Policy Proposal for evaluation by the
>> AC.
> So my intepretation of Part 2 Section 1 is correct then?

Yes - In a world of cooperative authors, I would expect that every meaningful 
policy proposal would become a well-composed draft policy that goes to the
community for further consideration. 

>> Once the policy proposal is clear and in scope, then it gets posted to the
>> as a Draft Policy (policy proposals that have not been accepted as a Draft
>> Policy
>> after 60 days may also be petitioned to Draft Policy status)
>> Top priority at this point is a clear in-scope problem statement and
>> suggested
>> changes to existing policy text.
> Thanks. I'll double check that.

You (and the AC shepherds assigned) can take any approach desired; I have
spent some time looking over the proposal and have a suggestions on one 
possible below that you may want to consider (or discard) as you prefer.

>> I will note that the policy development
>> process
>> is used for number resource policy and not ARIN business practices or
>> services;
>> the latter should be submitted to the ARIN consultation and suggestion
>> process
>> as they come under the fiduciary responsibilities of the ARIN Board of
>> Trustees.
> I think it belongs in policy. I left the section numbers alone since I
> would leave where in the NRPM it might go  (as it has been
> historically) up to "you".
> I agree, should try and separate business practice from desired policy
> implications. I'm not totally clear if that's the case here, but I
> would imagine the AC could accomplish that if they wanted to.

There's quite a bit of material in the proposal, but I think that two major points 
(which could be considered issues with policy rather than services or contractual 
matters) are the applicability of policy to legacy number resources and the default 
relationship of the registry to legacy resource holders; a problem statement that 
current policy is unclear with respect to applicability to legacy resources would 
be accurate and provide a basis for adding policy text accordingly.  

For reference, ARIN presently applies number resource policy to legacy resource 
holders and provides receive basic registration services (including the ability 
to update their contact information, DNS servers etc.) without charge.  Proposal 
text which clarifies and/or revises these positions could make for excellent 
discussion among the community and ultimately make for more understandable policy 
text in the NRPM regarding legacy number resources.  (This is not to say that the
other aspects of the policy proposal are not important, only that they may make 
good follow-on policy or ARIN suggestions once the more basic legacy resource 
matters are settled in the NRPM.)

In the end, it's up to you (aided by the assigned AC shepherds) to come up with 
Draft Policy text; I am also available to assist at any point if so desired.

Thanks again for raising this important topic!

John Curran
President and CEO

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list