Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 July 2004 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

• Alec Peterson, Chairman (AP)
• Paul Anderson (PA)
• Leo Bicknell (LB)
• Ron da Silva (RD)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• Sanford H. George (SG)
• Mark Kosters (MK)
• Lea Roberts (LR)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)
• John Sweeting (JS)
• Stacy Taylor (ST)

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin (EB), Policy Analyst
• Thérèse Colosi, Recording Secretary
• Nate Davis (ND), Director of Operations
• Susan Hamlin (SD), Director of Member Services
• Richard Jimmerson (RJ), Director of External Relations
• Ray Plzak (RP), President & CEO

Apologies:

• Kevin Martin
• Cathy Wittbrodt
• Suzanne Woolf

1. Welcome.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing.

The Chair requested BD to read the Agenda. BD called for any comments. There were no comments.

3. Formal Approval of the Minutes of April 20, 2004.

PA moved that:

“The ARIN AC adopts the minutes of April 20, 2004, as written.”

This was seconded by MK. The motion carried unanimously.

4. ARIN Staff Changes.

Ray Plzak introduced Nate Davis (ND), ARIN’s new Director of Operations and explained that Richard Jimmerson was now involved with the external operations of ARIN and special projects as assigned. Ray further stated that Einar Bohlin was moved to the Member Services Department (MSD) and would be reporting to Susan Hamlin, whose department will administer the policy development process.

5. Appointment of AC Vice-Chairman.

The Chair officially appointed Bill Darte (BD) as Vice-Chair of the AC.

6. Open Action Items:

APR04-06

ARIN Staff Perform estimate of the cost to perform data work and implementation of a “last verified” field with regard to POC verification. RJ stated that staff performed this analysis at the end of last year and submitted their findings to the team of the AC working on the policy proposal that existed then regarding POC verification. He stated that this is part of the process, and that policy proposals approved by the AC will also receive review by Counsel. CLOSED.

RP stated that he would confer with John Curran of the Board for instruction on what John was looking for as a result of this analysis.

APR04-07

ARIN Staff Regarding 2004-1 Defining Utilization of IPv4 Addresses: BD suggested ARIN staff review what is currently on the web, create a glossary, and be explicit about what it means. RP stated that a glossary was sent to the AC in March for comment and that another special project assigned to RJ, is to work on the definition of utilization and then for MSD to find the appropriate media to distribute it. He also stated that with regard to “efficient utilization” ARIN is looking at current examples and create new ones based on the last several years. RJ interjected that ARIN was looking into how staff counts utilization toward requests for address space. He stated that sample exchanges of requests will be provided to the community as well. BD volunteered to work with ARIN Staff. RP suggested closing this action item, and creating one for RJ’s project and the glossary as a separate action. All were in agreement. CLOSED. With regard to the glossary draft sent to the AC in March, SH stated that staff was working with the policy manual definitions sections, and within actual policy, to incorporate into the ARIN glossary and then send to the AC for further comment.

RD commented that he felt the content on the website was very well put together.

APR04-08

ARIN Staff Disband the following discussion groups: 6months, aggregation, and amnesty. RP stated that EB had performed this task. CLOSED

7. 2003-4 IPv6 Policy Changes Last Call Review.

LR moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIII Public Policy Meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt Policy Proposal 2003-4.”

This was seconded by RS. LR stated there had been seven comments to this on the PPML, one supported the policy, and the others were orthogonal. The motion carried unanimously.

8. 2004-3 Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity.

In their April 20th meeting the AC agreed to work with authors to revise the proposal text. No information was available to discuss at this time. The Chair directed BD and PA, part of the team shepherding this issue, to move it forward.

9. ARIN’s Directory Services.

RP stated this issue had two areas: hardware and the philosophy behind what is provided. He stated that ARIN experienced hardware issues in delivering WHOIS due to a combination of reasons including antiquated hardware, virus problems, and power issues. He stated that action has been taken and ARIN is moving forward to deal with the matter.

With regard to the philosophy of what is provided in directory services, RP stated that the topic has been brought up in public policy meetings for several years. He strongly felt that the AC review the overall look of what is in directory services, stating that over 95% of the data is used for utilization information.

LB stated that he had posted a long discussion of his own view on WHOIS to the PPML and received only one comment. He stated receiving only one response either indicated that no one had any real issue with his document, or that no one read it. He stated he would forward it to the AC for their thoughts. The Chair agreed.

Discussion ensued regarding a policy on the matter needed to be succinct; what the main purpose of directory services should be (i.e., handling unique-ness and top-level troubleshooting); and the availability of data which leads to data mining.

RS asked if ARIN’s servers were in a co-lo site. RP stated that ARIN did have a co-lo facility and it will eventually be fully operational with all services. He stated that engineering will be submitting recommendations to him.

The Chair tasked the AC as a whole to get a discussion going after reading LB’s post.

10. IPv6 Site-local Replacement Discussion.

In the 4/20/04 AC meeting, SW suggested this be discussed on the AC list. BD stated SW did post information from the IETF and RD had responded to her post. RD provided an update of the draft that is with the IETF. RD asked RP if the NRO ratified allocation functions. RP replied that the NRO was formed for this reason, and that IANA would take space and give it to the NRO for administration. He further stated that if space is set, it would need to be considered from a policy perspective - maybe regionally or globally.

LB offered his view points and concerns stating that under the current proposal the IETF wants ISPs to filter these “site-local” addresses from the global routing table (a.k.a. the Internet). However, since they are globally unique addresses he suspected at least some, if not all ISPs, will in fact route these addresses in the global routing table. At that point there will be two ways to get addresses that are globally unique, the standard IPv6 process in place already, and requesting the new site-local addresses. The worry from a Registry point of view is a form of “Registry shopping,” but in this case it’s “block shopping.” An entity that can’t receive addresses under one policy may try to use the other policy. What will the disruption be to the current process? What steps are being taken to ensure providers filter this space? Are the providers even willing to filter this space?

Discussion ensued with BD suggesting individuals make comments on the list.

11. Discussion of POC verification.

AD stated that he had been shepherding this for a period of time and that it was still unclear what the community wanted. MK volunteered to champion the issue, and write up text for review before the August 22nd IRPEP deadline.

12. Policy Mailing Lists Summary.

RP explained that EB would be forwarding this information to the AC on a monthly basis, posting it to the website, and that discussion will be tied to the appropriate policy under discussion. The AC found this very useful. RP asked the AC to review the first draft and comment to EB on its format.

13. ARIN Sub-regional Meeting Report.

The Chair gave a briefing to the rest of the AC on the meeting. SH stated there was a brief write up in the ARIN quarterly newsletter and is also available on the web.

RP gave a briefing regarding the several side meetings he participated in with regard to WSIS activities.

14. ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual.

RP stated that he sent information to the AC on this topic with a timetable. He reviewed the posting with the AC, explaining that there were redundant policy sections. The milestone list is road map for policy manual development - a digest of all policies broken into sections representing policy areas. The goal is to have the document ready for the ARIN meeting in October.

RP explained that between this manual and the new policy process already in place, it would create a more uniform presentation of material to differentiate between policy and procedure.

The Chair stated he would split this task up among the AC and propose what to do. BD volunteered to be the point person.

RP asked for AC to collate the comments and RD volunteered.

PA stated that he needed to leave the call at this time (5:14 p.m.).

15. Renumbering Guidelines.

The Chair asked AC if they needed to change the guidelines at this point. All agreed that no changes were necessary at this time.

16. The need to moderate some discussion items.

BD stated that this agenda item was in regard to comments he recently made on the list regarding ARIN’s litigation issues.

RP stated it is important that members of the AC realize that opinions stated can be construed as ‘speaking for ARIN’, when in fact, the person may only be voicing their personal view. BD agreed and stated that some presentation or guideline would be helpful. He further stated that all members should understand that the AC is objective and independent of the ARIN Board and the ARIN staff.

17. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other comments. There were no comments.

18. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:26 p.m. EDT. RD moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by ST. The motion passed unanimously.