Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 20 September 2007 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

• Marla Azinger (MA), Chair
• Ron da Silva, (RD), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Paul Andersen (PA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Leo Bicknell (LB)
• Lea Roberts (LR)
• Alex Rubenstein (AR)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)
• Stacy Taylor (ST)
• Suzanne Woolf (SW)

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst
• Thérèse Colosi, Scribe
• Richard Jimmerson (RJ), CIO
• Leslie Nobile (LN), Director Registration Services
• Ray Plzak (RP), President & CEO

ARIN Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan

Apologies:

• Bill Darte
• Alec Peterson

Absent:

• Matt Pounsett
• Heather Schiller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

ST moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of August 23, 2007 as written.”

This was seconded by RS. The motion carried unanimously.

4. Proposed Policy: Deprecate Lame Server Policy

RS stated that there has been a revision to the proposal, version 2.0, which was posted to the PPML on September 15. The Chair asked if there were any objections moving this forward or if the AC wanted to wait in case they needed time to review the new version. It was the sense of the AC to move forward. ARIN Counsel joined at this time. (4:10 p.m.).

RS moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled “Deprecate Lame Server Policy”, accepts it as written as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number.”

This was seconded by ST. The Chair called for discussion. RS stated that the edits were made based on PPML comments and conversations with the author. CA stated at some point these items need to be put into another document.

LR joined at this time (4:12 p.m.).

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

5. Proposed Policy: Modification to Reverse Mapping Policy

The Chair called for any other business. MP stated that the other half of LB’s proposal, which are topics the Board can edit, needs a motion from the AC recommending that the Board to do so at some point. LB explained that the text needed to go through NRPM editing prior to recommendation to the Board. The AC was in agreement that the remaining subject matter needs to go through the NRPM process.

CA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, “Modification to Reverse Mapping Policy”, does not accept it. The reason we do not accept it is because _it is already dealt with by current ARIN procedures. _The AC requests that the President advise the author of the availability of the petition process.”

This was seconded by RS. The Chair called for discussion. The Chair stated that she did not support this motion because the author feels there is not enough detail, nor is it already dealt with by current ARIN procedures. The Chair felt the policy needed to be put before the community since, in the past, the AC and the community have passed policy that addressed detailed operational issues directly related to this subject. Additionally, this subject continues to be a point of debate in hallway conversations and emails among ARIN participants.

SW stated she has noticed a similar repeat of discussion among the IETF in the Lame Delegation document that is still being worked on from roughly ten years ago. RS stated there is too much operational text in this proposal. Other AC members stated there is too much operational text in the NRPM.

The Chair suggested that if AC wants to remove operational text from policy, then they either need to: run this proposal through the IRPEP to gain comprehension and consensus as a community; or, take a position as the AC now, and not let operational text into the policy process – with an explanation as to why to the community. It was the sense of the AC to state a clear position to no longer let detailed operational text into the policy process. If the membership disagrees, then the AC expects the community to use the petition process to let them know.

The Chair directed the AC to construct an email explaining this for PPML notification, and thanked the AC for this discussion, due to her instigation, in order for the AC to reach a consensus on the issue of operational text and policy.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

6. Policy Proposal 2006-7

Changes to IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria. LR stated there was no update at this time.

7. Policy Proposal 2007-13

Policy Proposal Removal of ISP Immediate Need from End-User. ST stated there was no further discussion on the PPML since the AC’s last meeting.

8. Policy Proposal 2007-14

Resource Review Process. RS had no update at this time.

9. Policy Proposal 2007-15

Authentication of Legacy Resources. The Chair stated there was no update at this time.

10. Policy Proposal 2007-16

IPv4 Soft Landing. The Chair stated there was no update at this time.

11. Policy Proposal 2007-17

Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation. LR stated that new text was submitted, and it addressed most of the issues. There has not been much discussion on PPML. LR left call at this time (4:36 p.m.)

12. Policy Proposal 2007-18

Global Policy for the Allocation of the Remaining IPv4 Address Space. The Chair stated there was no update at this time.

13. Policy Proposal 2007-19

IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs. DA stated there was no update at this time.

PA left the call temporarily at this time (4:35 p.m.).

14. Policy Proposal 2007-20

Definition of Known ISP and Changes to IPv6 Initial Allocation Criteria. The Chair stated that the author has withdrawn this proposal.

15. Policy Proposal 2007-21

PIv6 for Legacy Holders with RSA and Efficient Use. SW stated that there was no update at this time..

16. Policy Proposal 2007-22

Expand Timeframe of Additional Requests. The Chair stated that there was no update at this time.

17. Policy Proposal 2007-23

End Policy for IANA IPv4 Allocations to RIRs. RP stated one of the authors has clarified that this is indeed a global policy. DA asked if there was a way to specify this. RP stated that as long as the authors state that a policy is intended as a global policy, then it is so.

18. Policy Proposal 2007-24

IPv6 Assignment Guidelines. RD stated that there was no update at this time. ST stated there was one post in favor of the policy.

19. Policy Proposal 2007-25

IPv6 Policy Housekeeping. ST stated that there was no update at this time.

20. IPv4 Depletion Discussion Panel for NANOG 41

LB stated that the panel is on NANOG’s agenda for Tuesday at 11:00 a.m. with a vendor rep. from Juniper, and Paul Vixie presiding on the panel. LB stated they are still looking for rep. from a small ISP as well; and, the draft of slides is due in one week.

PA returned to the call at this time (4:43 p.m.).
LR left the call at this time (4:42 p.m.).

21. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. No comments.

22. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:43 p.m. EDT. ST moved to adjourn and this was seconded by CA. The motion carried unanimously.