Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 27 October 2005 [Archived]

Los Angeles, CA

Attendees:

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

ARIN Board:

• Scott Bradner (SB), Secretary
• Paul Vixie (PV), Trustee

ARIN Staff:

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

ARIN Counsel:

• Stephen Ryan (SR)

Apologies:

• Alex Rubenstein

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. PDT.

The presence of a quorum was noted, as was the presence of non-Council attendees. It was noted that LR would be delayed, but would be attending this meeting. The Chair welcomed everyone.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments regarding this Agenda, and noted that he would be adding four items at the end.

3. Formal Approval of the Minutes of August 18, 2005.

ST moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council adopts the Minutes of August 18, 2005 as written.”

This was seconded by MK. The motion carried unanimously.

4. Formal Approval of the Minutes of August 31, 2005.

ST moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council adopts the Minutes of August 31, 2005 as written.”

This was seconded by MA. The motion carried unanimously.

5. Policy Proposal 2005-2: Directory Services Overhaul.

This proposal was withdrawn by the author. RP stated that the AC must notify the ARIN Board of this development. MK requested ARIN staff to assist with the requirements for doing this. RP agreed that ARIN staff would assist with this task.

6. Policy Proposal 2005-4: AFRINIC Recognition Policy.

This proposal was discussed at the ARIN XVI Public Policy meeting. In answer to the question “How many in favor of this proposal” the sense of the room (119) was: 55 in favor and none opposed.

AD moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVI Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the policy proposal be moved to Last Call.”

This was seconded by PA. AD noted that there had been no substantial comments, and that this proposal was ready to be moved forward. At this time LR joined the meeting. The motion carried unanimously.

7. Policy Proposal 2005-5: IPv6 HD Ratio.

This proposal was discussed at the ARIN XVI Public Policy meeting. In answer to the question “How many in favor of this proposal” the sense of the room (123) was: 51 in favor and none opposed.

AD stated that there was clear consensus and no objections were raised on mailing lists, and also that this is the direction that RIPE and APNIC were moving.

AD moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVI Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, recommends that the policy proposal be moved to Last Call.”

This was seconded by ST. The motion carried unanimously.

8. Policy Proposal 2005-6: IPv4 Micro-Allocations for Anycast Services.

This proposal was discussed at the ARIN XVI Public Policy meeting. In answer to the question “How many are in favor of advancing this proposal” the sense of the room (123) was: 11 in favor and 23 opposed.

In answer to the question “Does the use of a /24 out of an existing block adequately address this under existing policy, understanding that ARIN will not penalize you for under-utilization of the /24 on future requests” the sense of the room (123) was: 27 in favor and 4 opposed.

SW stated that she expected it to be a more controversial policy, and that she would like the policy to be clear. She further expressed the need to make sure the proposal was clear that there will not be a penalty for under-utilization. SB suggested that maybe two separate motions could be made.

SW moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVI Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the proposal be abandoned.”

This was seconded by AP. The Chair called for any further discussion. SW and ST volunteered to work with the author on the policy proposal. RS indicated that, in tomorrow’s report, he would recognize AP and SW for their efforts on this proposal and asked that they contact the author.

The motion carried: 12 in favor, 1 against (MK), and 1 abstention (LB).

9. Policy Proposal 2005-7: Rationalize Multi-Homing Definition and Requirement.

This proposal was discussed at the ARIN XVI Public Policy meeting. In answer to the question “How many are in favor of advancing this proposal” the sense of the room (119) was 48 in favor and 0 opposed.

RS moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVI Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the policy proposal be moved to Last Call.”

This was seconded by ST. RS stated that his intent was for this not to be limited to ISPs and suggested changing section 4.3.2.2. A discussion ensued about whether this would be a substantive change. SB stated that these types of changes were within the confines of what the AC can do.

RS moved that:

“Policy Proposal 2005-7 be changed to append Paragraph 4.2.2.2.2 verbiage to 4.3.2.2, so that the symmetry that currently exists is codified.”

AD seconded the motion. The motion carried: 12 in favor, 2 against (PA, AP).

RS moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVI Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the policy proposal as edited be moved to Last Call.”

ST seconded the motion. The motion carried: 13 in favor, 1 against (AP).

10. Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to Amend ARIN IPv6 Assignment and Utilization Requirement.

This proposal was discussed at the ARIN XVI Public Policy meeting. In answer to the question “Should the ARIN AC work on modifying current policy on IPv6 allocation size” the sense of the room (123) was: 46 in favor and 7 opposed.

In answer to the question “Should the ARIN AC work on variable allocation size” the sense of the room (123) was: 41 in favor and 6 opposed.

LR moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVI Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the AC work with the authors to revise the proposal.”

This was seconded by MA. The motion carried unanimously.

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

This item was previously Item 5, but it was requested it be moved to the end of this agenda to ensure LR was present to discuss it.

This proposal was discussed at the ARIN XVI Public Policy meeting. In answer to the question “How many people believe we should advance the proposal” the sense of the room (119) was: 24 in favor and 25 opposed.

In answer to the question “How many people believe we should continue work on end-user provider independent IPv6 address space” the sense of the room (119) was: 70 in favor and 2 opposed.

LR noted that the poll taken at the meeting was a near equal vote for and against, and that the author is happy to continue working on it.

LR moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVI Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the AC work with the author to revise the proposal.”

This was seconded by AP. The Chair called for comments. Discussion ensued with the AC voicing opinions. The motion carried unanimously.

12. Old Business Items.

A. Utilization. BD offered to help with this project within the existing review process. CLOSED.

B. PPML Digests.

Part 1: Monthly Summaries.
The AC discussed the feasibility of posting the monthly digest summary that they receive from ARIN staff to the PPML. RP noted that it would only be appropriate to provide a summary of the PPML discussion, and that the discussions on the other lists would not be appropriate to be posted to the PPML. ARIN staff will work on this and the President will provide an update to the AC in the future. CLOSED.

Part 2: Conducting a BOF-type of Meeting.
It was suggested that a brief meeting take place to educate people on current policy proposals, providing history and some technical background. It was noted that if this were to be done, members of the AC would need to be present to speak with people to answer any questions. OPEN.

13. Member Suggestion Process (MSP).

SB gave a presentation of the process he had developed. He explained that this is a process by which ARIN members ask ARIN to do “stuff” for them. A member would fill out a Web form which would then be reviewed by ARIN staff and legal counsel. It would then be reviewed by the AC for a specified a period of time. CJA suggested that the AC review the suggestions at the AC’s monthly meetings. It was suggested the URL be sent to the Board for review.

RP stated that a staff impact analysis would be needed, and that ARIN Counsel needed to review the process as well. SB stated he would present the process at the member meeting tomorrow. SB noted that the MSP process is not intended to limit participation of AC members. There was further discussion and disagreement about whether or not AC members should participate in polls.

14. APNIC 20 Trip Report.

AD and ST reported that there were very interesting conversations about the industry in general. They also noted that some things were done differently, but that they talked about many of the same issues ARIN was discussing at its meeting.

15. RIPE 51 Trip Report.

BD said that the RIPE meeting was similar to one of ARIN’s combined ARIN/NANOG meetings, and that their process for policy consensus was different than ours.

16. WSIS Update.

The President provided a summary of recent activities regarding the World Summit on the Information Society.

17. Any Other Business.

Multiple choice questions.

It was noted that John Curran was posing questions to the audience in a manner that results in the feedback the AC needs. No action item.

Internet Access

The question was raised if ARIN needed to cut off Internet access during the ARIN meeting. After much discussion, it was the sense of the AC that access need not be cut off.

Travel lottery

RP stated that when the newly elected AC members agree to serve their terms, the lottery would be conducted.

Editorial Council

CJA stated she was withdrawing from this council. RP said that this Council would be further discussed.

The Chair called for any other comments. BD commented that the ARIN facilitator of the open policy discussion on opening night should better control the time allocated to each speaker in order to accommodate each person wishing to speak.

18. Adjournment

The Chair stated that, if there were no objections, he motion to adjourn at 9:27 PDT. There were no objections and the motion was seconded by ST. The motion carried unanimously.