Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 February 2010 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Robert Seastrom (RS), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Marla Azinger (MA)
• Marc Crandall (MC)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Chris Morrow (CM)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Tom Zeller (TZ)

Minute Taker

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

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

Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan

Apologies:

• Bill Sandiford

Absent:

• Stacy Hughes

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 comments. There were no comments

3. Approval of the Minutes

It was moved by SL and seconded by DF that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of January 15, 2010, as written.”

The motion carried unanimously with no objections.

4. Draft Policy 2010-1: Waiting List for Un-Met IPv4 Requests

SL stated the proposal was ready for presentation in Toronto. EB stated it has been posted to the website and Public Policy Mailing List (PPML).

5. Draft Policy 2010-2: /24 End User Minimum Allocation Unit

OD stated the proposal was ready for presentation in Toronto.

6. Draft Policy 2010-3: Customer Confidentiality

OD stated that he and BS are following the discussion on this petitioned proposal, and will continue to do so up to and during the ARIN XXV meeting in Toronto.

7. Proposal #101: Multi-homed Initial Allocation Criteria

It was moved by CA and seconded by BD that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Multi-homed Initial Allocation Criteria’, 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. It was acknowledged that the proposal’s title had been changed to “Rework of IPv6 Allocation Criteria”. The AC agreed this new title would be the title used. ARIN staff was tasked to make the title change on the AC’s Wiki and to the PPML.

MC stated he had joined the call 4:08 p.m. EST and was in attendance for this item.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

8. Proposal #102: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations

It was moved by HS and seconded by BD that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations’, 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. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 12 in favor and 1 (DA) against via roll call.

9. Proposal 105: Simplified M&A Transfer Policy

It was moved by SL and seconded by BD that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Simplified M&A Transfer Policy’, 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. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

10. Proposal 106: Simplified IPv6 Policy

It was moved by DF and seconded by BD that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Simplified IPv6 Policy’, 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. SL stated the proposal needed minor clarification revisions. The Chair reviewed deadlines for submission for the AC’s reference.

MA stated that she felt it would be easier to grow from one’s already allocated block. SL stated that this text proposes to change how that happens, and that one no longer needs to reserve a block to grow. MA also pointed out that this proposal is making routing policy, and that it does not belong in address management policy.

SL stated that these are complicated issues that will be clarified and discussed in Toronto. He stated more explanation is needed; and, he indicated that he would post the revisions to the AC’s list for review. OD felt that the nature of this proposal was a bad idea, but it should be discussed in Toronto.

The motion carried 8 in favor, and 5 against (DA, CA, MA, MC, HS) via roll call.

OD requested discussion of Item 13 at this time, due to time constraints. The Chair agreed.

13. Proposal 109: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements

It was moved by CA and seconded by SL that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements”, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. CA felt it needed to be discussed in Toronto, and the Chair agreed to do so, confirming that the President had expressed it would be possible to do so. CA stated that historically this would be an open microphone discussion; but she would like a more formal discussion. The Chair agreed this proposal would have a presentation with a more formal discussion. CA or MC will present the proposal at ARIN XXV in Toronto.

MA pointed out that the proposal seems to be missing RWHOIS language. This was noted.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.
The Chair resumed the meeting at Item 11.

11. Proposal 107: Rework of IPv6 Assignment Criteria

It was moved by DF and seconded by SL that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Rework of IPv6 Assignment Criteria’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket; and, 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. MA opposed this motion noting that the whole new section of community networks is different, and that the title does not reflect it. She felt it should be removed from the document and be made into a separate proposal. SL stated it was not too late to change it.

The Chair noted that the staff and legal review had been done. He did agree that there was still time to take a hard look at the text, and make sure it is the right decision if the AC is to move it forward. DF agreed to remove community networks portion.

The motion carried 10 in favor and 3 against (DA, MA, CM) via roll call.

OD left the call at this time (4:42 pm EST).

12. Proposal 108: Eliminate the Term License in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM)

It was moved by SL and seconded by CA that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Eliminate the Term License in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM)’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

13. Proposal 109: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements

Discussed previously.

14. Any Other Business

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

15. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:48 p.m. EST. MA moved to adjourn and DF seconded. The motion carried unanimously with no objections.