Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 20 August 2009 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

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

Minute Taker

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin (EB) Policy Analyst
• Nate Davis, COO
• Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services

Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan, ESQ

Apologies:

• Marla Azinger
• John Curran
• Bill Darte
• Robert Seastrom

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged that PA would be delayed.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for comments. DF requested a brief discussion of the agenda for the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting (PPM) in Dearborn. The Chair stated it would be addressed if time permitted.

3. Approval of the Minutes

It was moved by SH and seconded by OD that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of July 16, 2009, as written.”

The motion carried unanimously with no objections.

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

It was moved by LR and seconded by SH that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed at the last three ARIN Public Policy Meetings (ARIN XXI, ARIN XXII and ARIN XXIII) and on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, as well as the latest ARIN staff and legal reviews; and, updated the policy accordingly, 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 a 30-day extended Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair asked EB if the motion followed the Policy Development Process (PDP). LR moved to table the motion while EB researched the PDP. The Chair called for any objections to tabling the motion, and moving forward with the meeting agenda.

There were no objections.

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

It was moved by SH and seconded by SL that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed Draft Policy 2009-3 (Global Policy Proposal): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries, selects it for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL asked if anyone preferred the current text, or the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) discussed language, or if the matter should be ironed-out before the ARIN PPM. It was the sense of the AC that the matter would be dealt with before the ARIN PPM, as it will entail coordination with the other RIRs.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

6. Draft Policy 2009-5: IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks

OD stated this proposal was on track for Dearborn ARIN Meeting.

7. Proposal #89: (Global) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries

It was moved by SH and seconded by SL that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘(Global) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASN’s) to Regional Internet Registries;, selects it as a Draft Policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.”

The Chair called for discussion. SH stated this proposal was also moving along well in the other regions.

The motion carried with 10 in favor, and 1 abstention (HS) via roll call.

HS stated she had abstained due being unavailable for the past few months, and unfamiliar with this proposal. SL stated he voted in favor because he felt it was good for the Community.

PA joined at this time (4:17 p.m. EDT).

8. Proposal #90: Open Access to IPv6

It was moved by CA and seconded by SH that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “Open Access to IPv6”, selects it as a Draft Policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated there was a controversial part and a non-controversial part to this proposal; and was concerned that there may be more consensus for one than the other.
SH stated that, as the author, she intentionally left out site-requirements. It was the sense of the AC that this proposal needed to be discussed at the meeting and the consensus needed to be determined. At that point, the outcome would be incorporated into the policy.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

9. Proposal #93: Equitable IPv4 Run Out

It was moved by DF and seconded by LR that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “Equitable IPv4 Run Out”, selects it as a Draft Policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF explained that he merged #93 and #94 and posted it to the PPML on August 19, and also posted it to the AC’s Wiki.

The motion carried with 11 in favor, and one against (SH). SH stated she was against anything that limits run-out.

10. Proposal #94: Predictable IPv4 Run Out by Allocation Window

It was moved by DF and seconded by LB that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having utilized portions of “Proposal #94: Predictable IPv4 Run Out by Allocation Window” to help with the creation of the Draft Policy entitled “Equitable IPv4 Run Out”, considers Proposal #94 to be closed. The Council requests that the President advise the Community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion.

The motion carried 11 in favor and one against (SH).

11. Proposal #95: Customer Confidentiality

This proposal has been deferred until after ARIN PPM in October.

12. Proposal #96: Transfer Listing Service

ND reported that the Board recently held a workshop and meeting; and, they discussed this proposal. It was the sense of Board that this matter was not a policy matter, but understood its significance. The Board would prefer to put this matter to the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) in conjunction with the AC, to solicit input and feedback from the community on the topic.

It was moved by SL and seconded by SH that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text entitled, ‘Transfer Listing Service’ and noting discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List and feedback from the ARIN Board and staff; abandons this proposal, and suggests the President direct this matter through the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL asked if this topic could still be discussed at the ARIN PPM. ND stated it would be a good idea to discuss it as a non-policy matter.

The motion carried with 8 in favor and 4 against (CA, LB, MC, OD).

EB stated he had reviewed the PDP, and requested to continue discussion of Item 4, previously tabled.

The Chair agreed and called for any objections to bring Item 4 off the table. There were no objections.

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

EB stated that after reviewing the PDP he found it was not prohibitive to send this draft policy to an extended last call. However he noted that the 30 day extension would pass the AC’s regularly scheduled meeting in September and put this draft policy onto the ARN PPM agenda for Dearborn, MI.

LR stated she didn’t see any point discussing this item in Dearborn. The Chair requested LR re-read the motion made; then called for further discussion. CA pointed out that if the last call period were not extended, it would be over before the ARIN Meeting in Dearborn, thus negating the need to discuss it at that time.

LR then suggested shortening the extended period to 21 days. EB stated that would also be acceptable per the PDP. LR moved to amend the motion to an 21 day extended last call. SH accepted the friendly amendment.

The new motion reads:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed at the last three ARIN Public Policy Meetings (ARIN XXI, ARIN XXII and ARIN XXIII) and on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, as well as the latest ARIN staff and legal reviews; and, updated the policy accordingly, 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 a 21-day extended Last Call.”

The motion carried with 8 in favor, 3 against (DA, LB, HS) and one abstention (PA) via roll call.

PA stated he had missed the discussion earlier in this meeting, thus he did not feel comfortable voting on this item.

13. Proposal #97: Waiting List for Unmet IPv4 Requests

It was moved by SL and seconded by DF that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “Waiting List for Unmet IPv4 Requests”, and the feedback from ARIN staff, elects to defer discussion until after the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Dearborn, MI; and, requests the President advise the Community of the petition process.”

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

SL requested the staff assessment be posted in conjunction with the President’s post regarding the petition process. The Chair tasked staff to do so.

14. Proposal #98: Last Minute Assistance for Small ISPs

It was moved by CA and seconded by DF that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, “Last Minute Assistance for Small ISPs”, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

Chair called for discussion. CA pointed out that this proposal will be discussed at the open mic session at the ARIN PPM, but not as a draft policy, as it was too late in the process.

The Chair explained his intention to present which items are draft policy and which are not yet draft policies and their status. He stated an open mic session will take place thereafter. He thanked EB for this idea.

LB stated his concern that this proposal was not able to make it to draft policy status given the fact that it was in the process for 2 months. The Chair reminded the AC that it was their decision at the time to compromise and present the proposal with an open mic session, in lieu of holding a special teleconference to push the proposal forward. LB felt it was a cumbersome process to have to hold a special call more than 2 months out and that should be reviewed.

OD stated that he felt this proposal should be abandoned as there was not a lot of support on mailing list and he didn’t think it made a lot of sense. SL agreed stating he would like to hear why it should be on the docket before voting.

LB stated that some people might want the wider discussion; but he did not think this policy was well formed, and was not in favor of it.

Noting that BD (the shepherd) was not on this teleconference, the Chair stated that BD had posted the template to the PPML. The Chair reviewed the pros and cons, and the AC reviewed them. DF stated that he supported motion for the possibility of finding pieces of a good policy within it; however it needed a lot of work. He felt there were interesting ideas that should be explored.

The motion carried with 9 in favor, 2 against (OD, HS) and one abstention (SL) via roll call.

15. Proposal #99: /24 End User Minimum Allocation Unit

It was moved by OD and seconded by SL that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, “/24 End User Minimum Allocation Unit”, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD policy has elements of previous concerns regarding routing table bloat.

The motion carried with 7 in favor, 5 against (DA, LB, DF, HS, JS) via roll call.

16. Proposal #100: Multihomed Micro Allocations

It was moved by LB and seconded by OD that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, “Multihomed Micro Allocations”, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated he would be abstaining from voting because the proposal conflicts his proposal (#99). He personally felt this proposal was overly complex and places things in policies that are not appropriate to ARIN’s policy i.e., dictating business models; and felt it bad policy. SL agreed.

The motion carried with 9 in favor, 2 against (CA, LR) and one abstention (OD).

17. Any Other Business

DF stated his requested item under Agenda Bashing was covered during this call; and, there was no need to discuss the matter.

The Chair reviewed the AC’s schedule to hold a face to face meeting in Dearborn during the ARIN PPM. He advised the AC to plan on leaving the venue no earlier than 4:00 p.m. on the last day of the meeting.

Counsel suggested the AC begin their face to face meeting either one hour after the close of the ARIN Member Meeting, or at 1:00 p.m. – whichever was earlier. The AC agreed.

18. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:07 p.m. EDT. It was moved by SL and seconded by SH to adjourn.