Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 24 April 2007 [Archived]

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Attendees:

• Marla Azinger (MA) Chair
• Ron da Silva (RS), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Leo Bicknell (LB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Ron da Silva (RS)
• Alec Peterson, (AP)
• Matt Pounsett (MP)
• Lea Roberts (LR)
• Alex Rubenstein (AR)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Stacy Taylor (ST)
• Suzanne Woolf (SW)

ARIN Staff:

• Thérèse Colosi, Scribe
• Nate Davis (ND), Director of Operations
• Susan Hamlin (SH), Director of Member Services
• Richard Jimmerson (RJ), Director of External Relations
• Ginny Listman (GL), Director of Engineering
• Leslie Nobile (LN), Director of Registration Services
• Ray Plzak (RP), President & CEO

ARIN Board:

• John Curran, Chair
• Lee HOward, Treasurer
• Bill Manning, Trustee
• Paul Vixie, Trustee
• Bill Woodcock, Trustee

ARIN Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan

Observers:

• Sebastian Bellagama, Chair, Numbers Council
• Didier R. Kasole, AFRINIC Board Member
• Bernadette Lewis, Secretary General, CTU

Apologies:

• Paul Andersen

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 6:15 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed everyone, and asked the President and the ARIN Board Chair to welcome and introduce ARIN Staff, Board, Counsel and Observers.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. Counsel stated he would not be providing a report. Item 18 was stricken from the Agenda.

3. AC Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP) Review/Discussion of Proposed Change

AC Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP) Review/Discussion of Proposed Change. The Chair provided a presentation to the AC on this subject to include a new timeline that moves AC shepherd initial involvement with a proposal and its author to match the time of a proposals official posting on the PPML. Discussion ensued. The President stated the goal of the IRPEP is to facilitate the making of good policy. He stated that the AC can form policy proposals from an idea any author had, to create a completely separate proposal. The author is always protected by the petition process, and the AC should not be afraid to promote what the community needs by presenting a different, competing policy if they felt it necessary. All agreed.

In the interest of time, the Chair tabled the subject for the AC’s next meeting; and, thanked everyone for their input.

4. Approval of the Minutes

ST moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of February 15, 2007 as written.”

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

The motion carried unanimously.

ST moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of March 1, 2007 as written.”

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

The motion carried unanimously.

5. Policy Proposal 2007-11: Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy

AR moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIX 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 2007-11: Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy, and moves to it to Last Call.”

This was seconded by ST. The Chair called for any comments. AP asked for the shepherd to summarize the discussion during the Public Policy Meeting. AR provided a summary and stated there were 53 in favor, none against.

The motion carried unanimously.

6. Policy Proposal 2007-1: Reinstatement of PGP Authentication Method

LB moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIX 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 2007-1: Reinstatement of PGP Authentication Method, and moves to it to Last Call.”

This was seconded by AR. Chair called for comments. LB stated there were 47 in favor, none against. The Chair called for any further discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously.

7. Policy Proposal 2007-2: Documentation of the Mail-From Authentication Method

LB moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIX 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 , and moves to it to Last Call.”

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for comments. LB stated there were 42 in favor, none against.

The motion carried unanimously.

8. Policy Proposal 2007-3: Documentation of the X.509 Authentication Method

LB moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIX 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 2007-3: Documentation of the X.509 Authentication Method, and moves to it to Last Call.”

This was seconded by MP. The Chair called for any comments. LB stated there were 43 in favor, none against.

The motion carried unanimously.

9. Policy Proposal 2006-7: Changes to IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria

LR moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIX 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 2006-7: Changes to IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria needs revising. The AC will work with the author.”

This was seconded by AP. The Chair called for comments. LR stated that there was consensus for the idea, and that the author was willing to revise the proposed policy. She stated that although the vote was heavily against this policy as proposed (2 in favor to 31 against), consensus indicated that something with a more stringent criteria proposed, addressing the whole section and improving it, would be welcome.

The motion carried unanimously.

10. Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications

AR moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIX 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 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications, and moves to it to Last Call.”

This was seconded by ST. The Chair called for comments. AR stated there were 36 in favor, none against. LB stated that during discussions in the Public Policy meeting comments were made that there were two (2) corrections needed. MP stated that only one was needed because the other error was only in the printed matter, but was correct otherwise.

MP suggested a friendly amendment to add:

_ “address space in the last section of bullet points be modified in number resources.”_

The Chair called for any objections to this second degree amendment. There were no objections.

The motion carried unanimously.

Counsel then stated, as a point of order, that if one AC member is the sponsor of a non-controversial proposal, it may be prudent and necessary to recuse him/herself from that proposal in voting. He stated that the AC may want to debate this issue, but he wanted to offer the thought. He further explained that if the proposal were controversial, the AC member may want to think about whether or not to vote. RS agreed and stated that he and the AC Chair discussed the relative merits of allowing AC authors to also be shepherds of a proposal, and thought it may not be a good idea. Counsel stated that this separation may be useful as well.

11. Policy Proposal 2007-4: Changes to IPv6 Policy - Removal of “Interim” Consideration

BD moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIX 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 2007-4: Changes to IPv6 Policy - Removal of “Interim” Consideration, and moves to it to Last Call.”

This was seconded by LR. Chair called for comments. BD stated that although there was not a unanimous show of hands, there were 44 in favor and 2 against this proposed policy.

The motion carried unanimously.

12. Policy Proposal 2007-9: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy

ST moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIX 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 2007-9: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy, and moves to it to Last Call.”

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for comments. ST stated that there were 38 in favor, none against this proposal.

The motion carried unanimously.

13. Policy Proposal 2007-10: End-Site Immediate Need Policy

ST moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIXI 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 2007-10: End-Site Immediate Need Policy.”

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for comments. ST stated that there were none in favor, 18 against this proposal. RS explained that this proposal was intended to clarify discrepancy in text of NRPM, but was confusing. A new proposal has already been sent to ARIN staff, with a new title. LB stated that he felt no one really understood the two-part clarification currently proposed. HS stated that current end-user policy was sufficient, however there is a section of NRPM that mentions ISP policy; this proposal was trying to add in an immediate need section and there was no need for that.

The motion carried unanimously.

14. Policy Proposal 2007-5: Changes to IPv6 Policy - Removal of “Multiple /48” Justification

DA moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIXI 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 2007-5: Changes to IPv6 Policy - Removal of “Multiple /48” Justification.”

This was seconded by BD. The Chair called for comments. DA stated that even the author voted against this proposal with none in favor, 31 against. LB stated that the author and speaker suggested shepherds take a different look at this issue, and create a new proposal.

The motion carried unanimously.

15. Policy Proposal 2007-12: IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal

BD moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIXI 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 2007-12: IPv4 Countdown Policy Proposal_.”_

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for comments. BD noted that were 47 against, and 4 in favor of this proposal, and further noted that this probably creates more liability. CA felt it was a very good discussion, and that discussion should continue and a solution be found. She felt it was a good exercise. SW also stated that good points were made it was clear the discussion needs to continue, but posed where the authority should come from as a community.

The Chair stated a discussion should start on the PPML to include ARIN staff. MP suggested a countdown on ARIN’s website. BD felt it could not be resolved in any one community – that there were multiple stakeholders and it should involve all of them. He suggested inviting them to be involved in ARIN’s PPML and ARIN in theirs. LB felt there should be perennial discussions until it occurs, a panel. CA suggested a similar panel during NANOG. RS felt it may have limited utility; that the enterprise people needed to be reached.

Chair suggested further discussion on PPML. The President suggested further discussion of this topic under Any Other Business if needed.

The motion carried unanimously.

16. Policy Proposal 2007-6: IPv4 PI Minimum Size Change

AP moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIXI 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 2007-6: IPv4 PI Minimum Size Change.”

This was seconded by ST. The Chair called for comments. AP stated there was definite interest in this proposal but that not much has changed since the last time it was visited. SW stated that the straw poll was close but there was no consensus. He stated there were 19 in favor, 21 against. ST stated the author offered to make changes. MP stated that, on the PPML, there were more in favor; and, that given some comments heard, it was worth discussing working with author. The Chair suggested abandoning this proposal, and go back to the author to create a fresh proposal.

The motion carried unanimously.

17. Policy Proposal 2007-7: Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments

ST moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XIX 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 2007 -7: Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments, and moves to it to Last Call.”

This was seconded by RS. The Chair called for comments. ST pointed out there were 43 in favor, and 1 against. LB suggested changing section 4.3 to not state the 2 sections. He offered a friendly amendment to wordsmith Section 4.3.

ST clarified this amendment by stating:

“change the last sentence to read: ‘the prefix size for an additional assignment is determined by applying the policies found in Section 4.3 of the NRPM’”.

RS seconded the amendment. RD cautioned the AC not to rely on the straw votes in the general session and as shepherds we should try to drive up PPML votes. The Chair agreed but stated she was under the belief that although it may not be in the straw poll, the notes from PPML do exist, and the AC is not relying on straw poll only. CA stated that these minutes will reflect only the straw poll results, and the community may feel that this is the only vote. The community should know the PPML is counted.

ST pointed out to the AC that the motion stated for each policy proposal states that the PPML has been recognized.

AR asked if RSA included legacy allocations. Counsel replied that if someone has a legacy block and signs an RSA unrelated to it, the RSA does not cover the legacy block.

The motion carried w/one abstention (AR).

18. ARIN Counsel Report

Stricken above under Item 2, Agenda Bashing.

19. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

A. LB recommended that threads and posts to the PPML be recognized for voting outcomes.

B. ST stated that she posted to the IRC channel, “#ix”, where subscribers are peering coordinators world-wide, regarding discussing IPv4 burnout.

C. BD stated for the record that he had been on the AC for a long time and very much enjoyed the experience.

D. The Chair reiterated to the AC that they had a website with resources to help them, and asked them to review it and offer comments.

E. CA sent her regrets in advance for not being able to attend the AC’s conference call in May.

F. MP suggested an AC mailing list archive be added to the AC’s website if possible.

G. RD suggested photos be added to the AC’s website as well.

20. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 7:26 p.m. EDT. ST moved to adjourn and this was seconded by CA. The motion carried unanimously.