Author: Joe Maimon
Submitted On: 10 October 2010
Suggestion: ARIN should try to formalize its interaction with IETF and other standards bodies whose work will necessarily interact with policy implications. ARIN should adopt a mechanism whereby the ARIN community consensus on policy subjects affected by standards design can be properly conveyed to relevant bodies. ARIN should work with all other RiR's so that such liaison may become a broader forum reflecting a feedback from a global policy perspective to standards designers.
Updated: 27 September 2011
22 October 2010
Thank you for your suggestion regarding ARIN formalizing its interaction with IETF and other standards bodies as well as coordinating this effort with the other RIRs. Your suggestion has been echoed to ARIN by others in the community, and would appear to be best handled by the Number Resource Organization (which the RIRs use to coordinate various joint efforts). John Curran will raise this suggestion with the NRO to see if coordinated action can be arranged.
Thank you for your suggestion. ACSP 2010.19 will remain open until this issue is brought to closure.
20 July 2011
Just to follow up on this and specifically, the response ARIN provided. The Number Resource Organization's (NRO) Executive Council, which is comprised of the five Regional Internet Registry executives, concur that formalizing communications needs to be discussed and evaluated in the broader context of only one RIR, ARIN. To that end, the NRO EC will discuss this at their upcoming workshop at the end of August 2011. Afterwards, ARIN will provide an update regarding next step with your suggestion. This suggestion will remain open until resolved.
27 September 2011
In final response to your suggestion that ARIN formalize its liaison with standard bodies such as the IETF, I want to provide you an update regarding your suggestion.
The Number Resource Organization Executive Council (NRO EC), comprised of the five executives of the RIRs, recently reviewed the concept of a formal liaison with the IETF and believes it is worth pursuing through the NRO EC Chair. It is possible that the IETF may concur with establishing a formal liaison with the NRO, but it is also possible that the IETF will recommend to the NRO EC chair that any matters be brought through the IETF's standard open and transparent processes.
I wanted to further mention that in the recent review of the draft policy ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 address extension, the ARIN Board of Trustees determined this proposed policy to be outside of ARIN's policy scope. The Board therefore directed ARIN President John Curran to consult with the IAB and IESG on the potential issues of adopting this draft policy. Following consultation with IAB and IESG, the ARIN Board believed that this was not within ARIN's authority to unilaterally make specialized allocations of the sort proposed in 2011-5. Further, the ARIN Board recommended that any efforts in support of such an application be directed towards the IETF. I note this as an example of an IETF experience wherein the ARIN Board appropriately and proactively sought consultation with the IETF. ARIN believes there is a good relationship there and that ARIN issues can be brought forward and given proper consideration without creating a formal liaison mechanism.
ARIN believes that there is a sufficient avenue to engage the IETF and bring forward ARIN policy related matters as needed. Further, as you suggested, this suggestion of a formal liaison with the IETF is being raised in the context of the broader RIR community through the NRO EC, and we believe that the appropriate relationship will form if needed with the IETF.
Thank you for your suggestion that ARIN is now closing.