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

Teleconference

Attendees:

• Marla Azinger (MA), Chair
• Ron da Silva, (RD), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Paul Andersen (PA) ** **
• Leo Bicknell (LB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Matt Pounsett (MP)
• Lea Roberts (LR)
• Stacy Taylor (ST)

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst
• Thérèse Colosi, Scribe
• Nate Davis, COO
• Leslie Nobile (LN), Director, Registration Services

ARIN Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan

Observers:

• Owen DeLong, 2008 elected AC member
• Scott Leibrand, 2008 elected AC member

Apologies:

• Cathy Aronson
• Ray Plzak
• Alex Rubenstein
• Heather Schiller
• Suzanne Woolf

Absent:

• Rob Seastrom
• Alec Peterson

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EST. 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 November 15, 2007 as written.”

This was seconded by LR. The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.
The motion carried unanimously.

4. Policy Proposal 2007-19: IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs

On December 11, 2007, this proposal was adopted by the ARIN Board of Trustees.

5. Policy Proposal 2007-21: PIv6 for Legacy Holders with RSA and Efficient Use

On December 11, 2007, this proposal was remanded to the AC by the ARIN Board of Trustees. A majority of Board members felt that the discussion of the difference between “utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments” vs. “utilization of a direct IPv4 assignment” should have submitted to PPML for further discussion among the community in lieu of moving this proposal to last call. The Board requests that the AC revisit language changes suggested during ARIN XX, and facilitate adequate discussion on PPML.

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair suggested this item be tabled so that the AC can discuss it on their mailing list, and requested they look through the notes and discuss the merits of the Board’s decision.

It was the sense of the AC that the item be tabled per the Chair’s suggestion. The Chair tabled this item until the AC’s next meeting.

6. Policy Proposal 2007-22: Expand timeframe of Additional Requests

On December 11, 2007, this proposal was remanded to the AC by the ARIN Board of Trustees. This was done in order for the AC to further work on text changes made by the author during ARIN XX, and the fact that Board perceived a lack of support on the mailing list, and support at the Public Policy Meeting, that was dependent on certain conditions.

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair stated that the AC needed more time to review this proposal. DA explained that he supported the Board’s decision because a change was made at ARIN XX and it was incorporated into the presentation when the policy was presented. However, the policy on the PPML for last call did not include the change. The last call and the initial review proposals are identical, but do not include the change made at ARIN XX. The author had changed the language stating “…member for one year” to “…subscriber member for one year”.

The Chair felt it important for AC to make sure they understand the difference, and are aware of this change. The Chair asked if anyone objected to discussing this proposal further on the AC’s mailing list. There were no objections. The Chair closed this agenda item, and requested the AC send their comments to the AC’s mailing list.

7. Policy Proposal 2007-25: IPv6 Policy Housekeeping

On December 11, 2007, this proposal was adopted by the ARIN Board of Trustees.

8. Policy Proposal 2007-14: Resource Review Process

LB stated he had not heard from author since ARIN XX, and had no update at this time. The Chair asked LB to send the author a reminder email this week. LB agreed.

9. Policy Proposal: 2007-16: IPv4 Soft Landing

BD stated he had contacted David Conrad, and that David intends to continue with the proposal and edits after the holidays. He plans on submitting a proposal to APNIC of the same nature. BD stated that David has not heard from Geoff Houston, who was going to work with him on this proposal.

10. Policy Proposal: 2007-17: Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation

LR stated that Owen DeLong’s last update applies, and he is working on a revision before the end of the year. LR feels confident Owen will submit the revision.

11. Policy Proposal: 2007-23: End Policy for IANA IPv4 Allocations to RIRs

DA stated that there was no update at this time. He stated he had sent an email to the author, but has not received a response.

12. Policy Proposal: 2007-24: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines

ST stated that there has not been any discussion on the PPML about this proposal. The Chair requested she try to foster some discussion. ST agreed.

13. Policy Proposal: 2007-26: Deprecate Lame Server Policy

MP stated there was no update at this time, and he has not seen any discussion on the PPML.

14. Policy Proposal: 2007-27: Cooperative Distribution of the End of the IPv4 Free Pool

LB stated he that has not heard from the author on this proposal. He stated he will send an email to the author.

15. Policy Proposal 200-Reduction-6.5.1.1.d

BD moved:

_ “The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled “Policy Proposal 200-Reduction-6.5.1.1.d “, postpones the decision on the proposal in order for the shepherds to work with the author.”_

This was seconded by MP. The Chair called for discussion. BD stated that PA crafted language and sent it to the author regarding what it means to be a known existing ISP, and the 20 number, etc. issue, for consideration. The author responded that the language would be considered. The Chair asked if the issue of combining this with another similar proposal was discussed. BD replied that part of the submitted language contained a suggestion to combine, and initial response from the author was that they had no objection. BD has not heard from the author since this time. He stated that PA has the lead on this proposal and since he was not on the call, BD felt uncomfortable recommending combining proposals at this point. He stated he would regroup with PA and authors.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

16. Policy Proposal Globally-Coordinated-RIR-Pie-IPv4

ST moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled “Policy Proposal Globally-Coordinated-RIR-Pie-IPv4”, does not accept it. The reason we do not accept it is because we feel it is complex, there were too many staff concerns, and there was no support for this proposal on the PPML. The AC requests that the President advise the author of the availability of the petition process.”

This was seconded by MP. The Chair called for discussion. MP stated that there was 1 posting since October, and none since the AC initially decided to postpone the proposal. He said there is no support at all. BD stated that this proposal would need more discussion than has been seen on the PPML. The Chair had concerns with the issue of measurement concerns and how to do accomplish this among the RIRs. She did not know if Internet community as a whole would even be capable of accomplishing this.

Nate Davis stated that with regard to the motion as stated, the author has not yet seen the staff’s comments; and that usually the comments would be released publicly when the proposal was numbered and accepted. He stated, in this case, the proposal is not being accepted and suggested providing the author with the staff comments directly.

BD suggested allowing the AC shepherds of the proposal to provide the author with the comments. All agreed.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

17. IETF Update

The Chair stated that she noticed at the IETF conference in Vancouver, IPv6 is receiving much more visibility, with more proposals being written. She explained that there was a bit of a divide between text that was written a decade ago, and what people deploying v6 currently are finding. She found that the recurring perspective with some of the authors was that the text written a decade ago is still working, but there may be a need for change roughly 10 years from now. The Chair felt this was not a path to take. She spoke to people to try to increase awareness of what the operators have to deal with. She stated that many don’t know what is being been done as opposed to what has been established.

The Chair stated that representing ARIN is a daunting task, but it is very good for communication on the subject. The Chair said she spoke at the open microphone session during the IETF IPv6 discussion. She pointed out that the ARIN AC has made a decision that it intends not to oppose IETF documents; and, that RFC’s and documents written at IETF do and will affect RIR policy. She further noted that everyone needs to be aware of this fact. The Chair stated that people at the IETF meeting were surprised by these statements.

LR stated the Chair is doing a great job representing the AC, and that there is much more awareness of the RIRs as a partner to the IETF, but it is an uphill battle.

The Chair also reported that some people from Cisco Systems are working on internet architecture as far as the routing tables so that they won’t continue to grow. She spoke with them, and tested their work from an operator’s perspective. Since they look at it at from a high level, she stated it was great to work with them and give them a different view.

18. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. The Chair thanked RD and AR for their service on the AC. RD stated his time spent on the AC was very enjoyable.

PA joined the call at this time (4:40 p.m.)

ND asked Counsel if he wanted to provide a legal update to the AC. Counsel provided an attorney-client privileged update to the AC.

LB stated that the AC will be seeing a more formal announcement, but that the ICANN Board recently decided put Quad A records in the route servers in the DNS system within the first quarter of 2008. He stated this was significant in that it is the last hurdle to get over to be able to have a v6-only network without v4.

19. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:49 p.m. EST. ST moved to adjourn and this was seconded by LR. The motion carried unanimously.