Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 19 April 2005 [Archived]

Orlando, Florida

Attendees:

• Ron da Silva (RD), Chair
• Alec Peterson (AP), Vice Chair
• Paul Andersen (PA)
• Marla Azinger (MA)
• Leo Bicknell (LB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• Mark Kosters (MK)
• Lea Roberts (LR)
• Alex Rubenstein (AR)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)
• John Sweeting (JS)
• Stacy Taylor (ST)
• Cathy Wittbrodt (CJW)
• Suzanne Woolf (SW)

ARIN Board:

• John Curran (JC), Chair
• Scott Bradner (SOB), Secretary
• David Conrad (DC), Treasurer
• Bill Manning (BM), Trustee
• Paul Vixie (PV), Trustee

ARIN Staff:

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

ARIN Counsel:

• Stephen Ryan

Invited Guest :

• Leo Vegoda , RIPE NCC (Observer)

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted, as was the presence of non-Council attendees and the invited guest. The Chair welcomed everyone.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments regarding this Agenda. SOB requested a discussion regarding the Opinion Process. The Chair added this under Any Other Business. JC requested #7 be moved to #4. The Chair agreed.

3. Formal Approval of the Minutes of March 3, 2005

MK moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council adopts the Minutes of March 3, 2005 as written.”

This was seconded by RS. The motion carried unanimously.

4. Parliamentary Procedures

JC stated that there are new members elected to the Board and AC annually. It was decided that, at the AC’s first face-to-face meeting of the year, JC would present a briefing on parliamentary procedures to the AC. The presentation included information on: adhering to discussing whatever motion at hand was being made at the time; respect for each member’s right to speak and to be heard; doing the right thing for the community; taking the time to discuss motions made before voting on them; and, when someone makes a comment, it is entirely proper for the Chair to re-state what was said for clarity.

At 6:20 p.m. JC left the meeting.

The Chair stated the importance of running an efficient meeting, and that he was sensitive to the Council’s time in attending the meetings. For each item, he stated he would continue to assign a primary and secondary person to shepherd the items and to provide updates at the AC’s meetings for the rest of the Council.

5. Selecting Representatives to the Nominating Committee (NomCom)

According to the ARIN election schedule, Advisory Council needs to select two (2) representatives to serve on the 2005 Nomination Committee.

The NomCom consists of two (2) representatives from the Board of Trustees, two (2) representatives from the Advisory Council, and three (3) representatives from ARIN General Members in good standing. The NomCom is responsible for identifying, recruiting, and certifying a properly selected slate of candidates for the ARIN Board of Trustees to be placed in nomination before the General Membership for election.

The Chair called for two volunteers. AP and RS volunteered. RP stated that BM and SOB were the volunteers from the ARIN Board stating that BM was the Chair of the NomCom. He also stated that ARIN would send an announcement, calling for volunteers from the general membership for the NomCom on Wednesday, April 20, 2005.

6. AC Trip Report Template

A template was provided as a guidance tool for AC members to use when attending other RIR meetings. They will then use this template when they report back to the Council on their experiences.

7. “ARIN Review” Editorial Board

This item pertains to setting up an Editorial Board for the ARIN Quarterly Newsletter with representatives from the ARIN Board and ARIN Council. The representatives would work with ARIN Staff to suggest content and authors, and possibly obtain commitments from the community to submit articles on pertinent topics.

RP stated that ARIN’s Member Services Department requested this Board be created in order to make the publication better. He stated that there are two ARIN Board members already on this Editorial Board, and called for two volunteers from the AC as well for a term of one year ending December 31st. JS and CJW volunteered.

RP stated that PV and BM were the volunteers from the ARIN Board, and that himself and Thomas Narten will also be members of the Editorial Board.

8. Ethics Training

ARIN Counsel provided a presentation to the AC that included ARIN litigation matters, and Conflict of Interest as it applies to the AC. Counsel stated he would provide a copy of the presentation slides to the AC.

9. Policy Proposal 2004-3: Global Addresses for Private Network Inter-Connectivity

The Chair requested MA and BD provide an update on this proposal from discussions during ARIN XV. MA stated it was discussed during the meeting and that it is clear to the community on what the proposal is stating.

MA moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XV Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds community support for Policy Proposal 2004-3 as is.”

This was seconded by ST. The Chair called for discussion. MK and CJW suggested a friendly amendment regarding recommending using RFC 1918 space or IPv6 space.

RS formally stated the amendment as “recommends considering using RFC-1918 space or IPv6 space instead, to the extent practicable”.

MA accepted the friendly amendment, and this was seconded by ST. Discussion ensued regarding this amendment. After discussion, it was the sense of the AC that this amendment would be a substantive change to the policy proposal. Therefore, RS withdrew the amendment and MA accepted.

The original motion carried via role call: 13 for, 2 against (AR and RS)

10. Ratification of Policy Proposal 2004-5: Address Space for Multiple Discrete Networks

At the last ARIN Board meeting Scott Bradner proposed that the Board remand this proposal back to the ARIN Advisory Council for re-drafting. It was noted that this action could be completed without recycling the proposal policy through the IRPEP, as long as the meaning of the policy did not change.

The President presented this to the AC and suggested that members of the Board (BM and SOB) who had objection with this proposal, work with BD and AD to clarify the language in paragraph 4. The AC agreed. The Chair requested this be done no later than April 26, 2005.

11. Policy Proposal 2004-8: Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy to Regional Internet Registries

JS provided an update stating that discussions during the ARIN meeting included the issue of the size of subsequent allocations being /12 or /16 but that there was consensus in support of this proposal.

JS moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XV Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds community support for Policy Proposal 2004-8 as is.”

This was seconded by LR. The Chair called for discussion. BD stated that he agreed with MK’s statement during the Public Policy meeting: “IP Stewardship involves two principles: IP address conservation and reduction of fragmentation of routes in the global routing system. With IPv4, the focus is IP address conversation. In IPv6, we have a lot more space and therefore, the focus shifts to the reduction of fragmentation in the routing system.”

The Chair called for any further comments. The motion carried unanimously via role call.

12. Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-Sites

LR provided an update stating that there was lively discussion during ARIN XV with concerns on routing table space and AS number consumption; and that the vote was fairly split, but this was still a big interest for in the community.

LR moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XV Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, will work with the author to revise Policy Proposal 2005-1.”

This was seconded by AD. The Chair called for discussion. Discussion ensued on whether the proposal was able to be revised in such a way as to make it acceptable to the community. AD felt it important to realize current multi-homing in v6, timeframes and, be careful to make multi-homing practical. LR stated that the current policy is clear, but the issue would be how to craft a policy that would not create a run on the address space. It was the sense of the AC to move ahead with a revision.

The motion carried unanimously via role call.

13. Policy Proposal 2005-2: Directory Services Overhaul

LB mentioned the presence of law enforcement in attendance during ARIN XV and stated that discussion occurred regarding publishing records. He noted that there had been no feedback on not publishing this policy, and that no one had spoken out against it. LB stated he would move to revise this policy in order to remove the option of publishing records.

LB moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XV Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, will work with the author to revise Policy Proposal 2005-2.”

This was seconded by AP. The Chair called for any discussion. MK stated the need to look at the policy from different angles with regard to the scope and purpose of directory services. He stated that good observations had been made in the white paper RP had written, and felt the policy should be looked at from the perspective of meeting the scope and purpose of the white paper.

Discussion ensued on whether or not the proposal should be broken up into separate proposals on the different issues or left as one policy. PA felt it should be revised as a whole first, before breaking it into separate proposals.

The motion carried via roll call: 8 for; 7 against (MA, BD, AD, MK, AR, RS, and JS). The Chair stated that LB and MK would revise the proposal. RP requested for the purpose of a staff analysis impact statement and any advice from counsel, that the AC please advise ARIN staff early so that they can help as well.

14. 2005-3: Lame Delegations

PA provided an update stating that lively discussion had taken place on the PPML regarding whether or not anything be done at all on this issue, and further noted that consensus was in support of this proposal.

PA moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XV Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds community support for Policy Proposal 2005-3 as is.”

This was seconded by MA. The Chair called for discussion. Discussion ensued regarding what took place during ARIN XV and ARIN staff implementation. RP stated implementation would be announced on the PPML when it takes place, and that ARIN would act on comments received.

The motion carried unanimously via role call.

15. Review of Open Action Item List

JUL04-10 RJ, BD Defining Utilization

10/21/04 Update: No information could be provided at this time.

12/16/04 Update: BD stated that he had received an email with a document describing utilization from RJ. He reviewed it and also went through the ARIN policy document and found all references associated with utilization.

BD felt the document did not clear up inconsistencies in the policy document, and that an expansion of RJ’s document would be necessary. RJ stated that the document was a well vetted draft from among ARIN staff, but agreed with BD’s summation. He stated that some inconsistencies could be cleared up, but a full review needs to be done to weed out incorrectly used terms. RJ was tasked with sending the document to the rest of the AC for further review.

1/27/05 Update: BD stated he and RJ published their documents to the AC’s list for discussion and stated that one AC member had responded. He then suggested a common statement on what ‘utilization’ meant and referencing it to the Glossary seemed the most appropriate action. He stated that any other similar references that caused users frustration could be dealt with similarly. It was discussed that a possible action item in a BoF could be to let people know of this idea, gather other glossary items that were confusing, and ARIN staff could address them as well.

RP agreed with BD and stated that in terms of doing a sweep through the policy manual, careful editing to the document would be necessary. He agreed with BD on a BoF to keep this issue moving forward. RP also supported fixed definitions planted in the glossary; and suggested that the AC form a discussion group to review it. He further suggested there could be a joint task force of ARIN staff and AC members to work on it.

The Chair stated that he and BD would shepherd this initiative, with AP and CJW volunteering as part of the group.

3/3/05 Update: BD stated that everyone reviewed the NRPM and that he was still shepherding this issue. He stated that he would keep everyone posted on its progress.

4/19/05 Update: BD thanked everyone who reviewed the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), and apologized that MA had done the most work. He noted that all differences had been identified and aggregated into a common document. BD stated that this compilation had been published back to the group of AC members reviewing the NRPM, and he had received some comments.

BD also stated that he had created a first draft of definitions and had also published this to the group, but had received limited response. The group of reviewers in addition to BD is: AP, CJW, ST, and MA. A number of group members said that they wished to have BD’s documents re-sent to the group for review. BD stated he would resend the document to the review group for comments; and after group comment and edits, he would send it to the whole of the AC for its review and consideration.

Chair encouraged all of the AC to review the document when they receive it.

BD stated that the ARIN staff began this process with a document dealing with the historical use of ‘utilization’ and, that was a valuable document; however, crisp, absolute definitions needed to be documented, and that this was the reason for this secondary effort. OPEN.

16. Any Other Business

Opinion Process

SOB led a discussion of the opinion process that he had taken a token to describe. He stated that he and RP had discussed such a process but needed to determine what the role of the AC should be in an Opinion Process, and what the constituency should be for the process. After discussion SOB asked the sense of the AC, by show of hands, on two questions:

1. Should the opinion process be limited to ARIN members? (a show of 5 hands); Only public policy community? (3 hands); Both? (10 hands).

2. What should the role of the AC be in the Opinion Process? No involvement: (no hands); AC only involved in crafting questions (1 hand); Involvement in crafting questions and analyzing results? (7 hands).

SOB stated that he would continue working with RP to develop a process, taking into account the results of this discussion.

AFRINIC Update

RP stated that AFRINIC is now fifth RIR and they would be having their first meeting as such next week in Maputo, Mozambique. RP acknowledged the AC for their support, and also stated that the fact that the ARIN region took the lead on policy on behalf of AFRINIC was very valuable.

17. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn. AP moved to adjourn at 8:20 p.m. EDT. The motion carried by unanimous consent.