Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 29 April 2009 [Archived]

San Antonio, Texas

Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Marla Azinger (MA), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Paul Andersen, (PA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Leo Bicknell (LB)
• Marc Crandall (MC)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Lea Roberts, (LR)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin (EB), Scribe
• John Curran (JC), Acting President & CEO
• Nate Davis, COO
• Richard Jimmerson (RJ), CIO

ARIN Board of Trustees:

• Lee Howard (LH)
• Paul Vixie (PV)
• Bill Woodcock (BW)

Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan, ESQ

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. CDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. Due to the fact that several Board members needed to depart early for the airport, the Chair stated that discussion of the following Draft Policies would take place before the other items were discussed: Item 8. 2009-3, Item 6. 2009-1, Item 4. 2008-3, Item 5. 2008-7. The AC would then discuss the remainder of the agenda items.

3. Approval of the Minutes

OD moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of April 8, 2009, as written.”

SL seconded the motion. The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously with no objections.

The Chair stated that discussion of Item 8. Draft Policy 2009-3, would take place at this time.

8. Draft Policy 2009-3 (Global Policy Proposal): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries

SL moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, returns Draft Policy 2009-3 (Global Policy Proposal): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries to the AC’s docket for further development. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the petition process.”

PA seconded the motion. The Chair called for discussion. It was noted that there is a desire to work on a global policy on this topic. MA and SL met with all but one of the authors of the global proposal. The authors indicated they were willing to revise the proposal to make it pertain to Legacy address space only, as that was claimed to be the root of why this proposal was constructed. It was noted that Legacy address space in the ARIN region is address space that was allocated before ARIN’s existence. It was also noted that the intent of the proposal is not to prevent legacy transfers. MA also shared that this proposal is a bit of a concern because the entire concept of IPv4 utilization justification is disregarded by one RIR, as APNIC has a policy that currently does not require proper utilization for justification; and, if ARIN were to return any address space it could possibly be reallocated without proper utilization being justified. Despite this concern MA supported working out some revision of this proposal. The AC then requested feedback from the Board regarding history on the initial creation of this policy and if there were any limiting parameters that should also be considered.

AC members made several statements of support for continuing to work on the proposal. It was noted that ARIN has accumulated some legacy space, and that space is not being re-issued. This policy would return that space to IANA. It is not clear how much space this policy would ultimately cover, as that depends on how the transfer policy develops; and, it may be good to get experience with transfers first. Discussion ensued on the principle of a needs-based policy with opinions being expressed. After discussion, the AC requested that staff provide a report on ARIN’s free address space.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

The Chair stated that discussion of Item 6 would take place at this time.

6. Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy

The Chair stated that the AC needed to either discuss the status of this Draft Policy, or make a recommendation to the Board.

It was noted that Policy 2008-6 is currently adopted. JC pointed out that the Emergency clause of the Policy Development Process (PDP) allows for a high speed vehicle to make a change to the NRPM, and that the AC needs to make a recommendation on Draft Policy 2009-1.

DA asked the group how they felt about a motion to return an edited version of 2009-1 to the Board. It was suggested that the AC discuss the points that were polled at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting (PPM). LH said it was important that the text indicate that the parties must be in the ARIN region, and that resources go through ARIN.

The Chair noted that 2009-1 is on the AC’s docket; and, the AC must make a recommendation, per the PDP, within 5 business days.

Bill Woodcock and Paul Vixie left the meeting at this time (2:01 p.m. CDT.)

The Chair tabled discussion of 2009-1. The Chair stated the AC would address the rest of the items on the agenda at this time.

4. Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment

LR moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, returns Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment to the AC’s docket for further development. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the petition process.”

CA seconded the motion. The Chair called for discussion. There were several statements against the motion, suggesting it instead go forward to last call. Several others also stated, against the motion, that this draft policy had been through three meetings already, and should either be adopted or abandoned. Several made statements in favor of the motion stating it needed more work; and, that there had been recent discussion on the PPML.

Discussion ensued regarding the budget value being too high; yet some PPML posts stated the budget value was too low. The AC agreed there were several issues that need to be addressed to include: fees, definition of community network, special type of networks, Caribbean Region.
CA and PA suggested writing a Caribbean Community Networks proposal.

The motion failed with 6 in favor, and 9 against (CA, BD, OD, DF, SH, SL, LR, HS, RS) via roll call.

OD moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, finds Advisory Council and Community support for Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment, and moves to it to Last Call.”

LR seconded the motion. The Chair called for discussion. There was little discussion.

The motion failed with 7 in favor, and 8 against (MA, DA, PA, LB, MC, SH, HS, JS) via roll call.

SH moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, abandons Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

LR seconded the motion. The Chair called for discussion. JC noted that in the future, per Robert’s Rules of Order, only those that have voted against the motions can speak to reconsider.

The motion failed with 6 in favor and 9 against (PA, CA, BD, OD, DF, SL, LR, RS, JS) via roll call.

The Chair noted that this Draft Policy will remain on the AC’s docket.

5. Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC’s

OD moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, finds Advisory Council and Community support for Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC’s, and moves to it to Last Call.”

DF seconded the motion. The Chair called for discussion. LB recommended the first year period be extended to two years. MC recommended the retention of data and marking it invalid.

LB moved to amend the motion to remove the following sentence in the Draft Policy: “If ARIN staff deems a POC to be completely and permanently abandoned or otherwise illegitimate, the record shall be deleted.”, replacing it with: “The initial verification of POC contacts may be done over a two year period.”

OD seconded the amended motion.

The Chair called for a recess to work on the text of the draft policy. The Chair called the meeting to order.

HS moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, finds Advisory Council and Community support for Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC’s, and moves to it to Last Call with the revised text reflecting that the first year period be extended to two years.”

CA seconded the motion. The Chair called for discussion. SL noted there was a difference between the terms “no valid…” and “invalid…” within the Draft Policy text. In such a case, there could be two lists, one with no valid contacts, and one with invalid contacts.

HS offered the following revised Draft Policy text:

“Section 3.6 Annual WHOIS POC Validation.

3.6.1 Method of Annual Verification: During ARIN’s annual WHOIS POC validation, an email will be sent to every POC in the WHOIS database. Each POC will have a maximum of 60 days to respond with an affirmative that their WHOIS contact information is correct and complete. Unresponsive POC email addresses shall be marked as such in the database. If ARIN staff deems a POC to be completely and permanently abandoned or otherwise illegitimate, the POC record shall be marked invalid. ARIN will maintain, and make readily available to the community, a current list of number resources with no valid POC; this data will be subject to the current bulk WHOIS policy.

Implementation timeframe: Staff should begin implementation as soon as practical, but the AC understands that the initial pass through the database may take more than one year.”

The Chair called for a roll call vote on sending the above, revised Draft Policy text to Last Call.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

6. Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy

Previously discussed above

7. Draft Policy 2009-2: Depleted IPv4 Reserves

PA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, abandons Draft Policy 2009-2: Depleted IPv4 Reserves. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

DF seconded the motion. The Chair called for discussion. It was stated that there were more people at the PPM against the proposal than in favor of the proposal. The RIPE region has a proposal to shorten the allocation timeframes in steps. Such a proposal could be adapted to the ARIN Region. He noted that 2009-2 is not needs-based.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

8. Draft Policy 2009-3 (Global Policy Proposal): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries

Previously discussed above.

9. Draft Policy 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery Fund

BD moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIII Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, abandons Draft Policy 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery Fund. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

SH seconded the motion. The Chair called for discussion. Several AC members stated support for the motion. There were also statements in favor of a listing service. The Chair recognized the hard work and great deal of thought that was put into this proposal.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

10. Proposal #84: IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks

This proposal is on the AC’s docket. The policy experience report noted an issue with the IPv6 single aggregate language. HS and OD discussed working on a proposal regarding the issue.

11. Proposal #86: Clarify Board of Trustees Emergency Authority

PA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled “Clarify Board of Trustees Emergency Authority”, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process and the ACSP.”

RS seconded the motion. The Chair called for discussion. The AC discussed crafting a statement explaining their action. JC stated he would be prepared to post a statement to the PPML. HS suggested that the AC make the statement. RS offered to write an explanation, suggesting that this proposal was out of order, and better handled by another process.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

12. Any Other Business

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

The Chair called for recess at this time to discuss Draft Policy 2009-1.

The Chair called the meeting back to order at 4:30 p.m. CDT, noting that MA was no longer present.

The Chair stated the AC would resume discussion of item 6. Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy, at this time.

6. Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy

DA stated he sent the revised text to the AC’s mailing list for their review. The AC reviewed the text.

DA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council forwards Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy to the ARIN Board of Trustees, as amended, per the Policy Development Process.”

DF seconded the motion. The Chair called for discussion. There were several statements in support of the motion.

PA requested it be on the record that the AC recessed for a workshop to work on and create amended text for Draft Policy 2009-1.

LB noted it was unfortunate that the AC did not work on this on Sunday, so that it could be discussed at the PPM. JC clarified that this revised version of 2009-1 will go to the next Public Policy Meeting for reconsideration, per the Emergency PDP.

The motion carried via roll call vote with 12 in favor, and 2 against (LB, OD).

OD noted that he voted against the motion solely because of the lack of a sunset clause.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:40 p.m. CDT. CA moved to adjourn.