[arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015

Scott Leibrand scottleibrand at gmail.com
Tue Dec 22 15:39:32 EST 2015


That (end user rwhois) is exactly what current ARIN practice allows, and one of the reasons I was OK with abandoning the SWIP proposal (the other main reason being the lack of support). 
In this day and age setting up an rwhois server should be trivial (cheap and easy). If it's not, that probably means someone needs to work on a better open source rwhois server implementation. 

-Scott




On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 12:32 PM -0800, "Richard J. Letts" <rjletts at uw.edu> wrote:




















As an alternative to ARIN taking on the burden of allowing/managing SWIP for end-user registrants how about allowing end-user registrants to register/run a rwhois
 server?


 


That way if a large organization (like, say Apple or Microsoft) wants to publish data for their networks they can take on all the server costs and managing the
 data without imposing significant additional costs on ARIN?


 


Would that meet the need?


 




Richard Letts



 




From: arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net [mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net]
On Behalf Of David Huberman

Sent: Tuesday, December 22, 2015 11:45 AM

To: arin-ppml at arin.net

Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Advisory Council Meeting Results - December 2015




 




Following the excellent example that Scott Leibrand has done over the years, I wish to convey my objections over the abandonment of 2015-8, which would allow End-users to SWIP.




 




Year after year, and issue after issue, John Curran tells us "this is the way we are doing it; if you want us to change, go propose a policy".




 




That's exactly what happened with 2015-8.  




 




The issue is complex because of the billing issues (most of the justification for the original ISP fee schedule was because of SWIP) and the existence of the dichotomy between ISPs and EUs.




 




But the proposal is sound, in my opinion.  It introduces a policy requirement to force ARIN to change how it runs its software.  There's no wiggle room when a policy like this is passed.  The community speaks, the staff carries it out.




 




I acknowledge that there was not tremendous support at the first public meeting for 2015-8, but I think that is insufficient cause to abandon it.  We should discuss it further.




 




It should not be abdicated to the services WG which is not an elected body.




 




David




 



Sent from Outlook Mobile



 











On Tue, Dec 22, 2015 at 11:26 AM -0800, "ARIN" <info at arin.net> wrote:





In accordance with the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the ARIN

Advisory Council (AC) met on 17 December 2015.



Having found the following Draft Policy to be fully developed and

meeting ARIN's Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy, the AC

recommended it for adoption (to be posted separately for discussion as a 

Recommended Draft Policy):



   Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only 

applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool



The AC abandoned the following:



   Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment records for IPv4 End-Users



The AC provided the following statement, "The ARIN AC has voted to 

abandon draft proposal ARIN-2015-8. Although a number of participants at 

ARIN 36 and on the PPML indicated support for investigation of greater 

harmonization of the services provided by ARIN to ISPs and End-Users, 

this specific proposal had no substantial community

support. In fact, those who addressed themselves to the specific 

proposal, rather than broader issue of fees charged to ISPs vs. 

End-users or the types of services that ARIN should provide to each 

class of clients, did not support the specific proposal itself. Based on 

community feedback, we would suggest the broader issues be considered by 

ARIN, as part of a review of services."



The AC is continuing to work on:



   Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to 

Specified Recipients)

   Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30 day utilization requirement in 

end-user IPv4 policy

   Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use

   Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-national Networks

   Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified requirements for demonstrated 

need for IPv4 transfers

   Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating needs-based evaluation for 

Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 transfers of IPv4 netblocks



The AC abandoned 2015-8. Anyone dissatisfied with this decision may 

initiate a 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.









-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20151222/d3afb495/attachment-0001.html>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list