Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 11 April 2006 [Archived]

Montreal, Canada

Attendees:

• Ron da Silva (RD), Chair
• Alec Peterson (AP), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Paul Andersen (PA)
• Marla Azinger (MA)
• Leo Bicknell (LB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Mark Kosters (MK)
• Matt Pounsett (MP)
• Lea Roberts (LR)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)
• Stacy Taylor (ST)Suzanne Woolf (SW)

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin (EB), Policy Analyst
• Thérèse Colosi, Recording Secretary – via telephone
• Nate Davis, Director of Operations
• Richard Jimmerson (RJ), Director of External Relations
• Mary K Lee (MKL), Director of Human Resources & Business Administration
• Ray Plzak (RP), President & CEO

ARIN Board:

• Scott Bradner (SB), Secretary
• Lee Howard (LH), Treasurer
• Bill Manning (BM), Trustee
• Paul Vixie (PV), Trustee – via telephone

ARIN Counsel:

• Stephen Ryan

Apologies:

• Cathy Aronson
• Alex Rubenstein

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 5:14 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed everyone acknowledging MP and DA to their first face-to-face AC meeting.

2. Agenda Bashing

Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

The chair moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council adopts the Minutes of March 23, 2006 as written.”

Hearing no objections, the motion carried unanimously.

4. AC Participation in Tutorials

RP stated that the community values the AC’s input and the other RIR communities see the effectiveness of the AC in the policy development process. Policies are effectively moving along in our region, largely in part to the AC’s contribution. In view of this, RP requested the AC consider spending time on the day of tutorials of the ARIN meetings to interface with the community. RP stated that he felt AC participation would be very beneficial to the community. The AC was in agreement, and will discuss covering the tutorials on their list.

LR also commented on the Newcomer’s Lunch stating that not everyone who signed up attended the lunch, but there was good attendance and it went over well. There was a suggestion to change the format of the lunch. RP requested the AC to send any comments or suggestions to either himself or ARIN’s meeting planner.

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

LR stated that there was an issue raised that implementation of this policy proposal await the approval of similar policies in the other RIRs. It should be a globally-coordinated policy, not a global policy.

LR moved that:

“I would like to move to last call as amended: “that implementation awaits similar policy proposals being approved in the other RIRs.”

“T__he ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, and noting the amendment offered, finds that there is community consensus for Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to Amend ARIN IPv6 Assignment and Utilization Requirement and moves it to Last Call.”

This was seconded by RS. The Chair called for discussion. RP suggested making the motion to move the policy to last call, and amend it later. The AC agreed.

LR withdrew her original motion with the amendment offered and restated the motion as follows:

“T__he ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds that there is community consensus for Policy Proposal 2005-8: Proposal to Amend ARIN IPv6 Assignment and Utilization Requirement and moves it to Last Call.”

This was seconded by RS. The Chair called for discussion. There was no further discussion. The motion carried unanimously.

6. Policy Proposal 2005-9: 4-Byte AS Number Policy Proposal

AP moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVII 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, finds that there is community consensus for Policy Proposal 2005-9: 4-Byte AS Number Policy Proposal and moves it to Last Call.”

This was seconded by ST. The Chair called for discussion. MK suggested a friendly amendment to strike the word “nomenclature” and paragraph following it. This was seconded by MA. The Chair called for discussion. ** ** LR stated she would be against moving the policy proposal forward with these changes without an explanation.
AP suggested modifying the terminology section, and refer to the ASN exactly how we are going to refer to it.

AP withdrew the motion, and restated it as follows:

“T__he ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVII 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, finds that there is community consensus for Policy Proposal 2005-9: 4-Byte AS Number Policy Proposal, and moves it to Last Call with the modification that the section entitled “Nomenclature”, and the paragraph below it, be removed from the terminology section and modified to only reflect the actual decimal values.”

This was seconded by LB. The Chair called for any further discussion. There was no discussion further discussion. The motion carried unanimously.

7. Policy Proposal 2006-5: IPv4 Micro-Allocations for Anycast Services (Temporary)

MP moved that:

“T__he ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVII 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, abandons Policy Proposal 2006-5: IPv4 Micro-Allocations for Anycast Services (Temporary)__.

This was seconded by PA. The Chair called for discussion stating that 7 supported the policy proposal, and 19 out of 100 opposed. MA stated that people do not understand this proposal they need to be educated on the subject so that they can make an educated vote in the future.

SW stated that the author has said he is eager to work on this so that it will move forward. She felt that there is interest and the author is eager to work it out. BD suggested the AC work with author and post an explanation of the proposal to the PPML. Discussion continued on abandoning the proposal and starting over with a fresh proposal. SW requested someone else, other than her, volunteer to shepherd any new proposal. AP volunteered.

The motion carried with MK abstaining.

8. Policy Proposal 2006-3: Capturing Originations in Templates

SW moved that:

“T he ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVII 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, f inds that Policy Proposal 2006-3: Capturing Originations in Templates needs revising. The AC will work with the author.”

This was seconded by MK. The Chair called for discussion. SW stated it is not clear that policy change is the right mechanism, but the community wants involvement, and the policy process seemed the best way to accomplish this, but she was undecided. Discussion ensued with some in favor and some wanting to abandon the proposal.

At 6:17 p.m. EDT, the Chair called for recess for 7 minutes. The Chair resumed the meeting at 6:22 p.m. EDT.

AP stated that the AC is completely empowered to talk to the community and create a proposal to put before the community if they so chose. RS stated he was not in favor of working further, and was in favor to abandon, but would volunteer to work with author on a proposal that would be simple and easy to understand.

The motion carried with 7 in favor and 6 against (MA, BD, MP, LR, RS, ST) via roll call.

9. Policy Proposal 2006-2: Micro-Allocations for Internal Infrastructure

ST moved that:

“T__he ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVII 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, finds that Policy Proposal 2006-2: Micro-Allocations for Internal Infrastructure needs revising. The AC will work with the author.”

This was seconded by MA. The Chair called for discussion. ST stated that the majority of the proposal was a breaking out of existing policies and felt it muddied the waters and that it has nothing to do with intent of policy. It needs to be re-written because it is not about PI space. She stated she would work with the author. LB stated he was in support and stated to the AC shepherds that it would need to be shown to the community that other avenues have been explored.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

At 6:44 p.m. EDT the Chair called a short recess. The Chair resumed the meeting at 6:48 p.m. EDT.

10. Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites

BD moved that:

“T__he ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVII 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, abandons Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites, based on the polls collected suggesting that the community is in favor of a policy going forward this being the inferior one.”

This was seconded by ST. The Chair called for discussion. BD stated that there were two public policy proposals that were similar and tied together, and he wanted the motion to reflect this fact.

MP proposed amending motion to replace the word “inferior” with “less preferred”. BD accepted this friendly amendment and it was seconded by ST.

The new motion reads:

“T__he ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVII 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, abandons Policy Proposal 2006-4: IPv6 Direct PI Assignments for End Sites, based on the polls collected suggesting that the community is in favor of a policy going forward this being the less preferred one.”

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

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

LR stated this policy proposal had 2 pre-meeting edits, in response to discussion on the PPML and efforts by the authors, to harmonize 2005-1 and 2006-4 as much as possible. The authors added two additional criteria from 2006-4, which had significant support on the PPML, to the text of 2005-1, 6.5.8.2 entitled “Direct Assignment Size”. Specifically: “These assignments shall be made from a distinctly identified prefix, and shall be made with a reservation for growth of at least a /44.”

LR reported that these 2 edits were made prior to the presentation, and were clearly spelled out during the presentation. She stated it was fair to say that the consensus supporting 2005-1 included these edits.

LR moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds community consensus of Policy Proposal 2005-1:Provider-Independent IPv6 Assignments for End and moves it to Last Call with the edits.”

This was seconded by LB. The Chair called for discussion.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

7:01 p.m. EDT Chair called for a 2 minute recess. The Chair resumed the meeting at 7:05 p.m. EDT.

12. Policy Proposal 2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy

MA moved that:

“T__he ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XVII 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, finds that Policy Proposal 2006-1 : Residential Customer Privacy needs revising. The AC will work with the author.”

This was seconded by PA. The Chair called for discussion. MP stated that based on the straw polls there was no consensus to abandon or to move to last call. Originally the author was not interested in editing the proposal, but this afternoon he changed his mind. SW stated that she was in support of proposal, and in cases were there was such a split sense of the room, felt it important to work it out.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

13. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. BD wanted to make sure the new AC members review the AC handbook on the website. RP stated it was a good idea for all AC members to reacquaint themselves with the AC handbook.

14. Adjournment

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 7:09 p.m. EDT, with no objections.