Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 01 March 2007 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

• Marla Azinger (MA) Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Paul Andersen (PA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Leo Bicknell (LB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Alec Peterson, (AP)
• Matt Pounsett (MP)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)
• Stacy Taylor (ST)
• Suzanne Woolf (SW)

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin, (EB) Policy Analyst
• Thérèse Colosi, Scribe
• Nate Davis, (ND) Director of Operations
• Richard Jimmerson, (RJ)Director of External Relations
• Leslie Nobile, (LN) Director of Registration Services
• Ray Plzak, President & CEO

Apologies:

• Ron da Silva
• Lea Roberts
• Alex Rubenstein
• Heather Skanks

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. EST. The presence of a quorum was noted. It was noted that DA, MP, EB, and LN would be joining the call from Bali as soon as possible, as they were attending the APNIC meeting. The Chair reminded the AC that their schedules were tight, and to help keep this call on track. She asked the AC to please form their decisions on the policy proposals listed in the agenda based on the most current written text.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. RP stated that some of the proposals are controversial and that ARIN Counsel had sent comments to the AC list. The AC acknowledged Counsel’s concerns.

3. Approval of the Minutes

Chair moved that:

        "_The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of January 18, 2007 as written."_

The Chair called for any objections. The motion carried with no objection.

4. Policy Proposal: IPv4 PI Minimum Size Change

BD moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposed policy entitled, ‘IPv4 PI Minimum Size Change’, accepts the text, as submitted by the author, as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number.”

This was seconded by SW. The Chair called for any discussion. Hearing no comments, the Chair called for a roll call vote. During roll call, SW stated as a point of order, her comments regarding Section 4.4 regarding the micro allocation policy had not been heard prior to the call for a vote. Roll call was halted by the Chair and discussion ensued.

ST joined at this time (4:15 pm EDT).

RP stated that if the AC did not want to formally move this policy proposal forward, it can be discussed on the list. BD asked if there was time to work with author to modify it and still meet the deadline. RP stated the proposal needs to be posted as a formal policy proposal 30 days prior to the next ARIN meeting.

The Chair asked BD if he wanted the motion to remain as it was, or to change it. BD stated he wanted the motion to go forward as stated. Since roll call was previously stopped by SW’s point of order, the Chair asked for a restatement of the motion. BD restated the motion, and this was seconded by CA. The Chair called for a roll call vote.

The motion carried via roll call with five (5) in favor and 4 against (MA, RS, ST, SW).

RS felt it was perfectly reasonable to work w/the author at this point in time if there is confusion on any proposal. The AC briefly discussed having a discussion on the initial review stage of the IRPEP to clarify any questions they had regarding this stage of the process.

Council member, DA; and, EB of ARIN staff, joined from Bali at this time (4:30 p.m. EDT).

5. Policy Proposal: Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments

CA moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposed policy entitled, ‘Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments’, accepts the text, as submitted by the author, as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number.”

This was seconded by RS. The Chair called for any discussion. There were no comments.

Motion carried via roll call with one (1) abstention (MP). MP abstained due to his delayed arrival to the meeting during the voting process. LN of ARIN staff also arrived at this time.

6. Policy Proposal: eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments.

BD moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposed policy entitled, ‘eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments’, does not accept this proposal based on staff comments related to RFC 2050, and outlining RIR lack of jurisdiction over multicast address space.”

This was seconded by RS. The Chair called for any discussion. LB stated he felt this proposal was not well formed. RP called for a friendly amendment to the motion to replace the word ‘jurisdiction’ with ‘administration’. BD accepted the friendly amendment. The new motion reads:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposed policy entitled, ‘eGLOP Multicast Address Assignments’, does not accept this proposal based on staff comments related to RFC 2050, and outlining RIR lack of administration over multicast address space.”

Chair confirmed that BD did not feel the need to work with author instead of rejecting the proposal. BD stated the felt the motion should read as-is because the proposal is not within the purview of the RIR’s based on Staff comments. The Chair thanked him for the clarification.

Motion carried unanimously via roll call.

7. Policy Proposal: IPv4 Countdown

BD moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposed policy entitled, ‘IPv4 Countdown’, rejects the proposal based on the ARIN mission statement that it allocates IP resources, and also noting ARIN Counsel’s unofficial concerns.”

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for any discussion. LB expressed that he was gravely concerned about this motion due to Counsel and Staff comments. He stated this was a policy accepted by one other RIR and under consideration by most of the other RIRs. He felt it was also better written structurally than other proposals; and felt it should be moved forward and dealt with as such due to the other region’s actions.

RP clarified that the proposal has only been discussed in one region, and considered in APNIC. This proposal had not in fact been introduced to any other RIR policy forum.

BD explained that the reasoning behind his motion as stated was that it is not within the purview of ARIN, based on ARIN’s mission statement to allocate IP resources. He stated that the proposal stated ARIN would stop doing that, and ARIN does not have a mission to do that.

The AC briefly continued discussing opinions and the impossibility to implement such a proposal. DA stated he felt strongly that this issue should be addressed by the membership and the community.

The Chair called for a roll call vote, noting points made by the AC as very valid, the subject matter was very important; and that it needs to be addressed. However, she noted that the proposal, as written, halts v4 allocations.

The motion carried via roll call with two (2) against (LB, MP).

CA stated that she would like to see this topic on the Agenda for ARIN meeting in April. RP stated it will be added to the Agenda.

8. Policy Proposal: Transfer Policy Clarifications

PA moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposed policy entitled, ‘Transfer Policy Clarifications’, accepts the text, as submitted by the author, as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number.”

This was seconded by MP. The Chair called for any discussion. PA stated that, based on Michael Dillon’s comments on the PPML, and ARIN Counsel’s comments, as the author he was willing to make modifications to the proposal. BD suggested rather than moving the proposal forward as written, possibly change the motion to read ‘work with author’. RP stated that if the AC accepted the motion and then the author decides to change the text of the proposal - that is acceptable.

PA stated he was willing to make modifications on list to the AC and then formally modify the proposal. LN commented that this is for cleaning up the transfer language, and that ARIN Counsel commented on parts of original proposal. She stated that Staff focused on a small part of this proposal, and that the proposal itself needed a ‘major overhaul’. LN stated that Staff has the intention of cleaning up the proposal due to legal concerns. PA asked if the changes to the policy reflect the current state of affairs, and LN confirmed.

The motion carried via roll call with three (3) against (MA, BD, SW).

9. Policy Proposal: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy

RS moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposed policy entitled, ‘Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy’, accepts the text, as submitted by the author, as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number.”

This was seconded by BD. The Chair called for any discussion, and explained to members who were not present at the last AC meeting, that the AC had decided against merging the discussion of the three proposals that were similarly related.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

10. Policy Proposal: End Site Immediate Need Policy

RS moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposed policy entitled, ‘End Site Immediate Need Policy’, accepts the text, as submitted by the author, as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number.”

This was seconded by BD. The Chair called for any discussion. There were no comments.

Motion carried unanimously via roll call.

11. Policy Proposal: Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy

RS moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposed policy entitled, ‘Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy’, accepts the text, as submitted by the author, as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number.”

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for any discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

BD stated he needed to leave the call at this time due to a scheduling conflict (5:00 p.m. EDT).

12. Any Other Business

The Chair called for shepherds on the policies above that were to be moved forward.

• IPv4 PI Minimum Size Change: AP and PA volunteered.
• Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments: SW volunteered.
• IPv4 Countdown: This will be added to the Agenda only as a subject matter, and no shepherds were needed.
• Transfer Policy Clarifications: MP volunteered.
• Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy: RS and ST volunteered.
• End Site Immediate Need Policy: RS and ST volunteered.
• Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy: RS and ST volunteered.

PA reiterated discussing the initial stage of the IRPEP and all agreed to discuss the issue during their meeting in Puerto Rico.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:50 pm. EDT. CA moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by PA. The motion carried unanimously.