Policy Development Process (PDP)

Skip to main text Jump to related content

This version of the ARIN Policy Development Process was published on 1 May 2023. Visit the Policy Development Process archive to read previous versions.

Section One – Goals and Objectives

1.1 Purpose of the ARIN Policy Development Process

The primary goal of the Policy Development Process (PDP) is to create and update the policies that ARIN uses to administer Internet Number Resources (as defined herein).

Policies developed through the PDP must advance ARIN’s mission, not create unreasonable fiduciary or liability risk, and must be consistent with ARIN’s Articles of Incorporation, Bylaws, and all applicable laws and regulations.

Changes to Internet Number Resource Policy must be developed via open and transparent processes that provide a meaningful opportunity for public participation. All policies must be considered in an open and publicly accessible forum as part of the adoption process, with open participation for all who adhere to the guidelines of behavior and decorum.

All aspects of the PDP are documented and publicly available via the ARIN website. The PPML is archived and available to the public. The proceedings of each Public Policy Consultation shall be published. The meeting minutes of the Advisory Council and the ARIN Board of Trustees shall also be published. All policies are documented in the Number Resource Policy Manual.

1.1.1. The Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM)

The Number Resource Policy Manual is the official document published by ARIN, containing all policies successfully developed and adopted via the PDP. The NRPM is version-controlled and published by ARIN.

The current version of the NRPM is posted on the ARIN website at https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/nrpm/

1.1.2. Overview of Policy Development

1.1.2.1. Regional Policy

Regional Policy is Internet Number Resource Policy developed by each region’s Regional Internet Registry (RIR). Regional Policy developed in the ARIN region directs ARIN to perform functions related to its allocations of the IPv4, IPv6 and ASN number resources.

1.1.2.2. Global Policy

The Global Policy Development Process is separately documented and facilitated by the Number Resource Organization Number Council (NRO NC). Information about the NRO can be found at https://www.nro.net/

1.2. Definitions

The following terms and acronyms are used interchangeably throughout this document.

1.2.1. Day

Any reference to a day is to a calendar day unless otherwise specified.

1.2.2. Draft Policy (DP)

A Policy Proposal that is complete, in scope for the PDP, and accepted by the Advisory Council as a Draft Policy. A Policy Proposal is complete if it meets the requirements set out in section 2.2.2.

1.2.3. Editorial Update

An Editorial Update is a non-substantive change to the NRPM.

1.2.4. Internet Number Resources

Internet Number Resources consist of Internet Protocol version 4 (IPv4) address space, Internet Protocol version 6 (IPv6) address space, and Autonomous System (AS) Numbers. These three categories are defined by the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).

1.2.5. Internet Number Resource Policy

Policies successfully developed and adopted via the PDP.

1.2.6. Petition

An action initiated by a member of the Internet Community who is dissatisfied with the action taken by the Advisory Council regarding a specific Policy Proposal, Draft Policy or Recommended Draft Policy.

1.2.7. Policy Proposal (PP)

An idea for a policy that is submitted via the Policy Development Process. Detailed requirements for a complete Policy Proposal are found in section 2.2.1.

1.2.8. Public Policy Consultation (PPC)

An open public discussion held by ARIN of Internet Number Resource Policy that provides for the contemporaneous interaction and polling of in-person and remote participants.

1.2.9. Public Policy Mailing List (PPML)

The ARIN Public Policy Mailing List is used for discussion of Internet Number Resource policy by members of the Internet Community.

1.2.10. Public Policy Meeting (PPM)

A PPC held periodically by ARIN that includes Public Policy Consultations of all Draft and Recommended Draft Policies.

A Recommended Draft Policy is a Draft Policy that meets the three principles of Internet Number Resource stewardship and has been recommended for adoption by the Advisory Council as a Recommended Draft Policy. A Recommended Draft Policy is complete if it meets the requirements set out in section 2.3.1.

1.3. Participant Roles and Responsibilities

A variety of individuals and groups participate in the Policy Development Process and are mentioned throughout this document. A description of each is provided below.

1.3.1. Internet Community

The Internet Community is composed of individuals who are interested in the management, promotion, and operation of the Internet. ARIN Internet Community members consist of members from both within the ARIN service region and interested individuals outside the ARIN service region.

1.3.2. Proposal Author

A Proposal Author is a member of the Internet Community who submits an idea for an update to the NRPM to ARIN’s PDP. The Proposal Author reduces their ideas into a formal Problem Statement, as described in section 2.2.1.1. The Problem Statement, along with suggested changes to the NRPM, and other basic details create a Policy Proposal which is submitted to the Advisory Council for its consideration within the Policy Development Process.

1.3.3. Advisory Council

The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) is a body composed of the elected members of the Internet Community who have the responsibility to help implement the Policy Development Process. This includes facilitating the communication within the Internet Community regarding proposed changes to Internet Number Resource Policy, operating as a deliberative body to discuss potential changes to the NRPM, and making recommendations to the Board of Trustees.

1.3.4. Policy Shepherds

Policy Shepherds are members of the Advisory Council which have been selected by the AC Chair to guide a Policy Proposal through the Policy Development Process. Policy Shepherds assigned to a Policy Proposal can be changed at any time by the AC Chair. All references herein to a Policy Shepherd include a reference to all Policy Shepherds assigned to a Policy Proposal.

1.3.5. Board of Trustees

ARIN’s Board of Trustees (Board) is a body composed of elected members of the Internet Community responsible for the overall governance of ARIN. The Board ensures that the Policy Development Process is followed in creating and modifying Internet Number Resource Policy. The Board reviews the history of each Recommended Draft Policy before adopting it to ensure that the policy and its development process comply with the requirements specified in this document.

1.3.6. ARIN Staff

ARIN Staff are responsible for implementing Internet Number Resource Policies as articulated in the NRPM. ARIN Staff also provides feedback to the Internet Community and the Advisory Council through various methods including the staff and legal review of Draft Policies and policy experience reports.

1.4. Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy

Internet Number Resource Policy must satisfy three important principles, specifically: (1) enable fair and impartial Internet Number Resource administration; (2) be technically sound; and (3) be supported by the Internet Community.

1.4.1. Enable Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration

Internet Number Resources must be managed with appropriate stewardship and care. The Internet Community consists of a wide range of stakeholders with varying interests and concerns, and not all policy statements will apply to all Internet Community members. Internet Number Resource Policy must provide for fair and impartial management of resources according to unambiguous guidelines and criteria. All policy statements must be clear, complete, and concise.

1.4.2. Technically Sound

Policies for Internet Number Resource management must be evaluated for technical soundness against three overarching requirements: conservation, aggregation, and registration. More specifically, policies for managing Internet Number Resources must:

  • Support both conservation and efficient utilization of Internet Number Resources to the extent feasible. Policy should maximize number resource availability to parties with operational need.
  • Support the aggregation of Internet Number Resources in a hierarchical manner to the extent feasible. Policy should permit the routing scalability that is necessary for continued Internet growth. (Note that neither ARIN, nor its policies, can guarantee routability of any particular Internet Number Resource as that is dependent on the actions of the individual Internet operators.)
  • Support the unique registration of Internet Number Resources. Policy should prevent to the extent feasible any unknown or duplicate use of Internet Number Resources that could disrupt Internet communications.

Policies must achieve a technically sound balance of these requirements, and support for these technical requirements must be documented in the assessment of the policy change.

1.4.3. Supported by the Internet Community

Changes to Internet Number Resource Policy must be shown to have a significant level of support in the Internet Community in order to be adopted. The determination of support for the policy change is done by polling the Internet Community for support during a Public Policy Consultation (PPC), evaluating Internet Community support on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and through Internet Community feedback provided to members of the Advisory Council. The Policy Development Process, as a consensus-based collaborative development process, encourages incorporation of feedback received from participants where possible with the goal of increasing community support for policy changes.

A significant level of Internet Community support for a policy change does not mean unanimous; it may be demonstrated by a subset of the community, as long as the policy change enjoys substantially more support than opposition in the part of the Internet Community that is active in the discussion.

1.5. Communication and Discussion Methodologies

A variety of communication and discussion methodologies are used in the Policy Development Process. A description of each is provided below.

1.5.1. Public Policy Feedback (PPF)

Feedback which is received from members of the Internet Community in support of ongoing development of the Internet registry system and Internet Number Resource Policy. Feedback that is public and attributable to its author during policy discussions is considered relevant in the development of Internet Number Resource Policy.

1.5.2. Public Policy Mailing List (PPML)

The ARIN public mailing list for discussion of Internet Number Resource Policy. ARIN hosts this mailing list at https://www.arin.net/participate/community/mailing_lists/

1.5.3. Public Policy Meeting (PPM)

A public forum held periodically by ARIN that includes Public Policy Consultations of all Draft and Recommended Draft Policies. Public Policy Meetings are held at least annually, although Public Policy Consultations for selected Draft or Recommended Draft Policies may be held in between Public Policy Meetings in similar open forums.

1.5.4. Public Policy Consultation (PPC)

An open public discussion held by ARIN of Internet Number Resource Policy that provides for the contemporaneous interaction and polling of in-person and remote participants. These consultations may be held at ARIN’s Public Policy Meetings and at other related forums as approved by the ARIN Board of Trustees.

Section 2 – Policy Development Life Cycle

2.1. Introduction to Section 2

2.1.1. How to Use Section 2

The sections below outline each step of the PDP in chronological order. Each step of the PDP outlined below contains a description of the criteria needed to move forward to the next step in the PDP, followed by the specific responsibilities and potential actions available to the Advisory Council, the Internet Community, ARIN staff, and the ARIN Board of Trustees.

2.1.2. Voting – Advancement by AC on Policy Matters

All ARIN Advisory Council decisions on policy matters require an affirmative roll call vote of the majority of the members of the full Advisory Council, unless otherwise specified.

2.2. Policy Proposals

ARIN’s Policy Development Process starts with the creation and submission of a Policy Proposal. Policy Proposals may be submitted to the ARIN Policy Development Process by a member of the Internet Community except for members of the ARIN Board of Trustees or ARIN staff. Policy Proposals may be submitted at any time by following the procedure outlined on the ARIN website.

Upon receipt of a new Policy Proposal, ARIN staff will post the Policy Proposal to ARIN’s public website and notify the ARIN Advisory Council. The Advisory Council Chair will designate one or more members to act as Policy Shepherd(s) for the Policy Proposal.

2.2.1 Anatomy of a Policy Proposal

ARIN will provide a template for new Policy Proposal submissions on its website. If a Policy Proposal is submitted that does not meet the required format provided in the Policy Proposal template, the Policy Shepherd(s) assigned to the Policy Proposal will work with the Proposal Author of the Policy Proposal to modify the Policy Proposal to include all required elements. The Proposal Author controls the language of its Policy Proposal until it is accepted by the Advisory Council as a Draft Policy. A Policy Proposal contains the following elements:

2.2.1.1. Problem Statement

The Policy Proposal must contain a statement that clearly articulates a problem with existing Internet Number Resource Policy.

2.2.1.2. Proposed Policy Statement

The Policy Proposal should contain a proposed policy statement that provides suggested changes to the text of the Number Resource Policy Manual to address the problem identified in the problem statement. If a proposed policy statement is not included the Policy Shepherd(s) will work with the author to draft a proposed policy statement.

2.2.2. Criteria for Advancing to Draft Policy

The Advisory Council may not evaluate the merits of a Policy Proposal when deciding whether or not to advance the Policy Proposal to a Draft Policy. In order to advance to a Draft Policy, the Advisory Council must consider only whether a Policy Proposal meets the following criteria:

2.2.2.1. Clear Problem Statement

The Policy Proposal must contain a clear Problem Statement that identifies a real, perceived, or potential problem with existing Internet Number Resource Policy in the ARIN region. The text of the Problem Statement must provide sufficient clarity for the average member of the Internet Community to understand the problem described.

2.2.2.2. Proposed Changes to the Text of NRPM

The Policy Proposal must contain suggested changes to specific language in the NRPM which address the problem described in the Problem Statement. The proposed policy statement does not need to provide a perfect or complete solution to the problem identified in the Problem Statement. However there must be a reasonable connection between the problem identified in the Problem Statement and the suggested changes to the text of the NRPM provided in the proposed policy statement.

2.2.2.3. Fall within the Scope of ARIN Policy

In order to be considered within the scope of ARIN policy, a Policy Proposal must address policies and guidelines to be followed by ARIN in its role in managing Internet Number Resources within the ARIN region.

Note: A Policy Proposal may not define the specific processes by which the Policy Proposal will be implemented by ARIN staff, nor may it define or establish services offered by ARIN, or the fees charged by ARIN for its services. To suggest changes to ARIN processes, fees, or services, members of the Internet community may participate in ARIN’s Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP). The ACSP is described on ARIN’s public website.

2.2.3. Author Actions

During the proposal phase, the Proposal Author shall work with the Policy Shepherd(s) and ARIN staff to ensure the Policy Proposal meets the criteria set out in section 2.2.2. The author may revise (or not) the Policy Proposal based on the feedback received from the Advisory Council.

2.2.4. Advisory Council Actions

The Advisory Council shall review the Policy Proposal as submitted by the Proposal Author. After reviewing the Policy Proposal against the requirements in section 2.2.2 the following actions are available to the Advisory Council:

2.2.4.1. Advance to Draft Policy

If the Policy Proposal meets the applicable criteria the Advisory Council should advance the Policy Proposal to the Draft Policy state for consideration and discussion by the Internet Community. This action shall be announced to the Internet Community on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List.

2.2.4.2. Remand to Author

If the Policy Proposal does not meet the criteria for advancement to Draft Policy state, the Advisory Council may formally remand the Policy Proposal to the Proposal Author. This action shall be announced to the Internet Community on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). The Proposal Author shall also receive notice of the formal remand and a statement from the Advisory Council which notes the reasons for taking such an action. The notice shall also note the Petition Actions available to the Author. Policy Proposals which are remanded to the Author and not revised by the Author within 60 days are deemed to be abandoned.

2.2.4.3. Reject as Out of Scope

If the Policy Proposal is out of scope for the Policy Development Process the Advisory Council may reject it as out of scope. This action shall be announced to the Internet Community on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). The Author shall receive notice of the rejection for out of scope and a statement from the Advisory Council which notes the reasons for taking such an action. The notice shall also note the Petition Actions available to the Author.

2.2.4.4. Deem Editorial

If the text of the Policy Proposal is editorial in nature, the Advisory Council may use the Editorial Update process (as defined in section 2.8) for a Policy Proposal.

2.2.5. Community Petition Actions

2.2.5.1. Petition for Proposal Remanded

If a Policy Proposal has been formally remanded to the Proposal Author, the Proposal Author may request that a Petition be initiated to advance the Policy Proposal to a Draft Policy as defined in section 3. This Petition request must occur within seven days after the announcement date of the Advisory Council action. A successful Petition, within the meaning of section 3.1.4, results in the Policy Proposal being advanced to a Draft Policy. A staff and legal review shall be conducted and published on a Draft Policy advanced by Petition.

2.2.5.2. Petition for Proposal Rejected as Out of Scope

If a Policy Proposal has been rejected as out of scope, a member of the Internet Community may request that a Petition be initiated to advance the Policy Proposal to a Draft Policy as defined in section 3. This Petition request must occur within seven days after the announcement date of the Advisory Council action. A successful Petition, within the meaning of section 3.1.4, results in the Policy Proposal being forwarded to the ARIN Board of Trustees for consideration as a Draft Policy.

2.2.5.3. Petition for Promotion to Draft Policy

If a Policy Proposal has not been advanced to Draft Policy within 60 days of being submitted, a member of the Internet Community may request that a Petition be initiated to advance the Policy Proposal to a Draft Policy as defined in section 3. A successful Petition, within the meaning of section 3.1.4, results in the Policy Proposal being advanced to a Draft Policy. A staff and legal review shall be conducted and published on a Draft Policy advanced by Petition.

2.3. Draft Policy

Once a Policy Proposal is assessed as described in section 2.2, it becomes a Draft Policy. A Draft Policy will be presented to the Internet Community for feedback, and evaluated by the Advisory Council as described below.

2.3.1. Criteria for Next Step

In order to advance to a Recommended Draft Policy, a Draft Policy must meet the principles outlined in section 1.4: it must enable fair and impartial administration of number resources, be technically sound, and be supported by the Internet Community. A staff and legal review must be completed prior to advancing the Draft Policy to a Recommended Draft Policy state.

2.3.2. Community Action

The Internet Community may participate in evaluating and providing feedback (PPF) on a Draft Policy by participating on the PPML, at a Public Policy Consultation, by providing feedback directly to members of the Advisory Council, or via other recognized methods.

2.3.3. Advisory Council Actions

2.3.3.1. Presentation to the Community

The Advisory Council will present the Draft Policy to the Internet Community and encourage discussion and solicit feedback on the PPML. The Advisory Council may present the Draft Policy to the Internet Community for feedback at a PPC. The Advisory Council may elect to advance the Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy state without first presenting the Draft Policy at a Public Policy Consultation if the Advisory Council is satisfied with the level of feedback received from the PPML.

The Advisory Council may submit a Draft Policy for review by ARIN staff and legal at any point. A staff and legal review must be completed prior to advancing the Draft Policy to a Recommended Draft Policy state. If a Draft Policy has gone through substantial changes since the previous staff and legal review, the Advisory Council must submit a request for a subsequent staff and legal review prior to advancing the Draft Policy to a Recommended Draft Policy. The staff and legal review should be completed within 14 days of receipt of the submission.

2.3.3.3. Revision Based on Feedback

The Advisory Council may edit the Draft Policy in response to feedback from the Internet Community; in response to feedback received during the staff and legal review; and to better align the Draft Policy with the criteria outlined in section 2.3.1. Additionally the Advisory Council may, at its discretion, merge two or more Draft Policies of a similar nature or that aim to achieve a similar goal. If more than superficial differences exist between two Draft Policies, the Advisory Council should seek feedback from the Internet Community prior to merging two Draft Policies when doing so would involve omitting a substantive element from one or more Draft Policies.

2.3.3.4. Abandon the Draft Policy

The Advisory Council may abandon a Draft Policy that is unable or highly unlikely to meet the criteria set forth in section 2.3.1, or if an alternative Draft Proposal has received more support from the Internet Community.

The Advisory Council may advance a Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy after the criteria in section 2.3.1 are met.

2.3.3.6. Deem Editorial

If the text of the Draft Policy is editorial in nature, the Advisory Council may use the Editorial Update process (as defined in section 2.8).

2.3.3.7 Publish Assessment

The Advisory Council will assess the conformance of each Draft Policy to the principles defined in section 2.3.1 and document the result and any action taken in an assessment published to PPML. Any specific concerns expressed by a significant portion of the Internet Community must be explicitly noted and addressed in the assessment of the policy change.

2.3.4. Community Petition Actions

2.3.4.1. Petition Against Abandonment

If a Draft Policy has been abandoned by the AC, a member of the Internet Community may request that a Petition, as defined in section 3, be initiated to reverse the abandonment. This Petition request must occur within seven days after the announcement date of the Advisory Council action. A successful Petition, within the meaning of section 3.1.4, results in the abandoned Draft Policy being returned to a Draft Policy status. A staff and legal review shall be conducted and published on completion of a successful return of an abandoned draft to a Draft Policy. The Draft Policy may not be revised or abandoned by the AC until after it has been presented to the Internet Community at a PPC following the successful Petition. After such presentation the AC may revise or abandon the Draft Policy or advance the Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy status according to the standard Policy Development Process.

If a Draft Policy has not been advanced to Recommended Draft Policy within 90 days of being submitted, a member of the Internet Community may request that a Petition be initiated to advance the Draft Policy to a Recommended Draft Policy as defined in section 3. A successful Petition, within the meaning of section 3.1.4, results in the Draft Proposal being advanced to a Recommended Draft Policy. A staff and legal review shall be conducted and published on a Draft Policy advanced by Petition.

The Recommended Draft Policy may not be revised or abandoned by the AC until after it has been presented to the Internet Community at a PPC following the successful Petition. After such presentation the AC may revise or abandon the Recommended Draft Policy or advance the Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call status according to the standard Policy Development Process.

2.4.1. Criteria for Next Step

In order to advance a Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call the RDP must be presented to the Internet Community at a Public Policy Consultation. The RDP will again be reviewed to ensure it meets the principles described in section 1.4: (1) it must enable the fair and impartial administration of Internet Number Resources; (2) it must be technically sound; and (3) it must be supported by the Internet Community.

2.4.2. Community Action

The Internet Community may participate in evaluating and providing feedback on a Recommended Draft Policy by participating on the PPML, at a Public Policy Consultation, and by providing feedback directly to members of the Advisory Council.

2.4.3. Advisory Council Actions

2.4.3.1. Advancement to Last Call

Following the completion of the Public Policy Consultation the AC shall review the feedback provided by the Internet Community. The AC must only advance policies to Last Call that meet the Internet Number Resource Policy principles set out in section 1.4.

The AC may make minor changes to a Recommended Draft Policy prior to advancing that RDP to Last Call provided that the changes were discussed and supported by the Internet Community during the previous Public Policy Consultation. If the AC advances a RDP to Last Call that differs from the RDP presented at the last PPC, the AC will provide a detailed explanation for all changes to the text of the RDP to PPML.

If the AC makes substantial changes to the text of a RDP after it has been presented at a PPC, the revised text must be presented at a future PPC before the AC may advance the revised text to Last Call status.

2.4.3.3. Reversion to Draft Policy

If a Recommended Draft Policy has not been advanced to Last Call within 60 days of completion of a Public Policy Consultation where the RDP was presented, the RDP shall revert to Draft Policy status on the AC’s docket.

2.4.4. Community Petition Actions

2.4.4.1. Petition for Promotion to Last Call

If a Recommended Draft Policy has not been advanced to Last Call within 60 days following a Public Policy Consultation where the RDP was presented, a member of the Internet Community may request that a Petition be initiated to advance the Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call as defined in section 3. A successful Petition results in the Recommended Draft Policy being posted to PPML for a Last Call period of 30 days.

2.4.4.2. Petition Against Abandonment

If a Recommended Draft Policy has been abandoned by the AC, a Petition against abandonment may be initiated by a member of the Internet Community within 14 days of the announcement of the abandonment by the AC as defined in section 3. A successful Petition results in the policy being placed back on the AC’s docket as a Recommended Draft Policy and must be presented at the next PPC.

2.5. Last Call

2.5.1. Criteria for next step

In order to advance a Recommended Draft Policy in Last Call to the Board for adoption the RDP must fully meet the three principles of Internet Number Resource Policy described in section 1.4. A Recommended Draft Policy must have significant Internet Community support as indicated by a poll taken at the last Public Policy Consultation prior to advancement to Last Call. A RDP in Last Call shall be posted to the Internet Community for a minimum of 14 days. The AC in its discretion may extend a Last Call period for up to 30 additional days.

2.5.2. Community Action

The Internet Community may participate in a final evaluation of a Recommended Draft Policy in Last Call by providing feedback to the AC on PPML, or via direct conversations with members of the AC.

2.5.3. Advisory Council Actions

2.5.3.1. Advancement to the Board for Adoption

Following the completion of the Last Call period the AC shall review feedback provided by the Internet Community. The AC must only advance policies to the Board for adoption which continue to meet the requirements of section 1.4., and where no undiscussed substantial issues have been raised by the Internet Community. Advancement shall be made by the affirmative roll call vote of the two-thirds of the members of the full Advisory Council.

2.5.3.2. Editorial Edits

The AC may make minor editorial changes to a Recommended Draft Policy and reissue it for Last Call. No other changes may be made while the policy is in Last Call.

2.5.3.3. Reversion to Draft Policy

If a Recommended Draft Policy in Last Call has not been advanced to the Board for adoption within 60 days of completion of the Last Call period the Recommended Draft Policy shall revert to a Draft Policy on the AC’s docket.

2.6. Adoption

2.6.1. Criteria

The ARIN Board of Trustees evaluates a Recommended Draft Policy for adoption once it is received from the Advisory Council. In its review, the Board of Trustees confirms that the process followed the purpose of the ARIN PDP (as per 1.1) and that the resulting policy satisfies the Principles of Internet Number Resource Policy with respect to the Policy Development Goals of the PDP specifically defined in 1.4.

2.6.2. Board Actions

The Board of Trustees may adopt the Recommended Draft Policy. Upon adoption the Recommended Draft Policy shall be integrated into the NRPM and implemented by ARIN staff.

2.6.2.2. Remand or Review to the AC, Rejection

The Board of Trustees may reject or remand the Recommended Draft Policy to the AC. A rejection or remanding shall include a written explanation to the AC noting the issues which caused the Board to take this action and shall be announced on PPML.

A rejected RDP shall revert to Draft Policy state. A remanded RDP shall remain in RDP state. A remanded RDP that is not subsequently abandoned by the Advisory Council must be presented to the Internet Community at a subsequent PPC before it is sent to another Last Call.

The Board of Trustees may also seek clarification from the AC without remanding the RDP.

2.7. Implementation

2.7.1. Staff Action

ARIN staff shall implement changes to the NRPM as adopted by the ARIN Board of Trustees. ARIN staff prepare an update to the NRPM to incorporate the changes that were adopted via the PDP and publish the update and the implementation time for new policies if applicable. ARIN shall also update its internal documents and procedures as necessary to fully implement the changes to the Internet Number Resource Policies.

ARIN staff should monitor the implementation of policies and report back to the Internet Community if it becomes aware of a significant defect or issues regarding policy implementation.

2.8. Special Actions

2.8.1. Editorial Update

2.8.1.1. Editorial Update Criteria

An Editorial Update results in non-substantive change to the NRPM. Editorial Updates can provide additional clarity, correct textual errors or references, improve grammatical language, or remove non-operative sections of the NRPM. Editorial Updates do not change ARIN’s practices or procedures related to the administration of Internet Number Resources.

2.8.1.2. Advisory Council Action

If a Policy Proposal meets the criteria of 2.8.1.1 the AC may advance a Policy Proposal as an Editorial Update. After the AC adopts a Policy Proposal as an Editorial Update, ARIN staff shall post a copy of the proposed update to PPML for a minimum of 30 days. ARIN staff shall conduct a staff and legal review of this proposed update for consideration by the Advisory Council and the Board of Trustees.

2.8.1.3. Community Action

Members of the Internet Community may comment on PPML if they believe an update would not be an Editorial Update or if they believe that additional formal discussion should occur for the proposed NRPM update.

2.8.1.4. Advisory Council Action

The Advisory Council shall review all the comments posted by the Internet Community on the PPML regarding the Editorial Update. Following its review, the AC may make a formal recommendation to the Board of Trustees that the Editorial Update be included in a future version of the NRPM.

2.8.1.5. Board Action

Upon receiving a recommendation from the Advisory Council to make an Editorial Update to the NRPM, the Board of Trustees shall confirm that the change meets the criteria of 2.8.1.1 and that notice of change has been publicly posted to the PPML for at least 30 days. The Board of Trustees may then ratify this Editorial Update for inclusion into the NRPM.

The Board of Trustees may remand an Editorial Update to the AC. A remand shall include a written explanation to the AC noting the issues which caused the Board to take this action. A remanded Editorial Update returns to the Draft Policy state.

2.8.1.6. Staff Action

ARIN staff shall implement editorial changes to the NRPM in a similar manner as other NRPM changes pursuant to section 2.7.

2.8.2. Policy Suspension

2.8.2.1. Policy Suspension Criteria

Prior to suspending an adopted policy, the Board of Trustees must determine that a current Internet Number Resource Policy as implemented is flawed such that it causes significant impediments to ARIN’s ability to manage Internet Number Resources, or causes a substantial adverse impact on the Internet Community.

2.8.2.2. Initial Board Action

If a policy meets the suspension criteria as defined in 2.8.2.1, the Board of Trustees may immediately suspend the policy. Within 14 days of suspending a policy the Board of Trustees shall request a recommendation from the AC on next steps. The Board of Trustees shall publish a notice of the suspension and describe the problem that must be addressed giving rise to the policy suspension.

2.8.2.3. Advisory Council Actions

The Advisory Council shall provide the Board of Trustees with a recommended update to the Internet Number Resource Policy which resolves the issue that caused the policy suspension or note that the problem is solved by suspension. Any recommended update to policy provided by the Advisory Council under this section shall take the form of a Recommended Draft Policy. A recommendation to the Board of Trustees to adopt the Recommended Draft Policy under this section shall only be made by the affirmative roll call vote of the two thirds of the members of the full Advisory Council. Any recommended policy made under this section must be narrowly tailored to address the problem resulting in the suspension, and cannot exceed the scope of the problem presented.

2.8.2.4. Community Actions

The Advisory Council’s recommended update shall be published for discussion on the PPML for a period of at least 14 days, during which the Internet Community may provide feedback to the AC and the Board on its recommendation.

2.8.2.5. Board Action

The Board of Trustees will review the Advisory Council’s recommendation and the PPML discussion. If the Advisory Council has recommended an alternative policy to the Board of Trustees for adoption, the Board of Trustees will assess whether the recommended alternative policy sufficiently addresses the problem resulting in the suspension, and whether the proposed alternative policy is limited to the scope of the problem which resulted in the policy suspension. If the Board of Trustees adopts the AC’s recommended update, the adopted Recommended Draft Policy shall be implemented immediately by ARIN staff or at a timeline as directed by the Board.

2.8.2.6. Advisory Council Actions

The adopted Recommended Draft Policy shall then be placed on the AC’s docket as a Recommended Draft Policy as defined in section 2.4. If the text of the Recommended Draft Policy has not been changed before the text freeze deadline prior to the next Public Policy Consultation, this Recommended Draft Policy shall only be presented to the Internet Community as an informational update and automatically removed from the AC docket 30 days following the PPC. However, if the text of the Recommended Draft Policy has changed it shall be presented at the next scheduled Public Policy Consultation and shall follow the usual Policy Development Process to completion.

2.8.3. Emergency Policy Action

2.8.3.1. Emergency Policy Action Criteria

If urgently necessary pursuant to ARIN’s mission the Board of Trustees may initiate Internet Number Resource policy by declaring an emergency and posting a Recommended Draft Policy on the PPML.

2.8.3.2. Initial Board Action

After the Board of Trustees has declared a policy emergency, the Board of Trustees shall publish on the PPML: (1) a description of the emergency being addressed by the emergency policy proposal; (2) the text of the proposed policy, which will take the form of a Recommended Draft Policy; and (3) an invitation to the Internet Community to take part in the discussion of the posted emergency Recommended Draft Policy for a period of 14 days.

2.8.3.3. Community Action

The Internet Community shall have 14 days following the Board of Trustees declaration of emergency on the PPML to review and provide feedback on the emergency Recommended Draft Policy.

2.8.3.4. Advisory Council Actions

Following the completion of the discussion period on PPML, the Advisory Council will review the emergency Recommended Draft Policy and the PPML and make a recommendation to the Board of Trustees within seven days of the end of the discussion period. The Advisory Council will evaluate the emergency Recommended Draft Policy to ensure that it meets the requirements of section 1.4, is fair and impartial, technically sound, and supported by the Internet Community given the limited time period for evaluation. A recommendation to the Board of Trustees to adopt the emergency Recommended Draft Policy, may be made only by the affirmative roll call vote of the two-thirds of the members of the full Advisory Council.

2.8.3.5. Board Action

If the Board of Trustees adopts the emergency Recommended Draft Policy, the policy shall be implemented immediately by ARIN staff or at a timeline as directed by the Board.

2.8.3.6. Advisory Council Actions

The emergency Recommended Draft Policy shall then be placed on the AC’s docket as a Recommended Draft Policy as defined in section 2.4. If the text of the Recommended Draft Policy has not been changed before the text freeze deadline prior to the next Public Policy Consultation, the Recommended Draft Policy shall only be presented to the Internet Community as an informational update and automatically removed from the AC docket 30 days following the PPC. However, if the text of the Recommended Draft Policy has changed it will be presented at the next scheduled Public Policy Consultation and shall follow the usual Policy Development Process to completion.

Section 3 – Petition Process

3.1. Petition Action

A member of the Internet Community may petition the Board of Trustees to overrule a decision made by the AC that an Internet Community member believes does not properly follow the Policy Development Process as described in this document.

ARIN Staff and ARIN Board of Trustees may not initiate or be counted in support of petitions.

3.1.1. Petition Initiation

A Petition action shall be initiated when a member of the Internet Community completes the Petition initiation form. The form shall be available on ARIN’s website. On the form, the petitioner shall specify which stage of the Policy Development Process that they believe has not been properly followed and provide an issue statement describing the error that occurred.

Petition initiations must be done under the circumstances and within the timeframes defined within the PDP. ARIN staff shall notify the Internet Community of the availability of a Petition option on PPML when Community Petition actions are available and provide a link to the Petition initiation form. Only one Petition action will be considered for a given policy action.

3.1.2. Petition Window

After a valid Petition initiation form is successfully submitted, ARIN staff shall announce within two business days to the Internet Community on PPML that a Petition has been initiated. A Petition window shall start when the announcement is made to PPML and shall remain open for seven calendar days. The announcement to PPML shall include a link to the Petition support form, the text of the current Policy Proposal, Draft Policy, or Recommended Draft Policy being petitioned, the ACr action being petitioned, the result of a successful Petition, and the date and time of the close of the Petition window.

3.1.3. Petition Support

Members of the Internet Community who wish to support the Petition action must be a registered point of contact for an ARIN member organization to submit a Petition support form. The Petition support form shall note the policy action being petitioned, the issue statement from the petitioner, and that the supporter supports the Petition and the issue statement. Petition support forms must be successfully completed while the Petition window is open.

The Petition initiator is eligible to submit a Petition support form provided they meet the criteria in this section.

3.1.4. Petition Conclusion

After the Petition window has closed, ARIN Staff shall review the Petition support forms. A Petition action is considered successful if at least 15 valid Petition support forms from 15 different ARIN member organizations are received.

ARIN staff shall post to the PPML the result of the Petition action within two business days of the close of the Petition window. The results of a Petition shall be presented to the Internet Community at the next PPC.

 

Section 4 - Updating and Amending the PDP

4.1. Policy Development Process Feedback

Changes to the ARIN Policy Development Process may be proposed by members of the Internet Community via ARIN’s Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP). Change suggestions to the PDP received via the ACSP should also be forwarded by ARIN staff to the Advisory Council for its consideration. https://www.arin.net/participate/community/acsp/

4.2. Policy Development Process Updates

The ARIN Policy Development Process is adopted and modified by the ARIN Board of Trustees following the requirements stated in the ARIN Bylaws. The procedures for updating and amending the ARIN Policy Development Process can be found in the ARIN Bylaws. https://www.arin.net/about/corporate/bylaws/

Policy

Related