Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 July 2010 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Scott Leibrand (SL), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Marc Crandall (MC)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Chris Morrow (CM)
• Bill Sandiford (BS)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)
• Tom Zeller (TZ)

Minute Taker

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis, COO
• Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services

Board Members:

• Paul Andersen

ARIN Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan

Apologies:

• Cathy Aronson, Bill Darte, Owen DeLong

Absent:

• Marla Azinger

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:08 PM EDT. The presence of quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed Paul Andersen to the call.

2. Agenda Bashing

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

3. Approval of the Minutes

It was moved by SL, and seconded by SH, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of June 17, 2010, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

It was moved by SL, and seconded by RS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXV Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, supports Draft Policy 2010-1: Waiting List for Un-Met IPv4 Requests, and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated there were no objections during the extended last call.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

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

Per the AC’s recommendation, the ARIN Board ratified this policy during their meeting on July 9, 2010.

6. Draft Policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 Assignment Criteria

DF stated he recently posted edits to the AC mailing list, and will post the edits to the AC Wiki. He briefly reviewed them with the AC. The Chair requested the AC review the edits to ensure this is ready for discussion at their next meeting.

7. Proposal 109: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements

The President noted that staff comments had been distributed to the AC and there were significant issues worthy of consideration. It was noted that neither shepherd of this proposal was on this teleconference to provide comments. SL stated he felt the proposal needed revision due to staff’s comments.

The President pointed out that if the AC did adopt as it as a draft policy, and made changes to it close to the ARIN meeting, it was then possible that it could not be petitioned in order to have the unchanged version presented at the meeting.

It was moved by SL, and seconded by BS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements”, 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 any discussion. DA stated that this proposal lumped several very large topics together. He noted it is not a simple proposal and it concerned him that the AC would need to wrestle with all of the multiple components of the text. He felt it should be broken out into its component parts.

Discussion ensued as to the merits of discussing it as a draft policy at the next ARIN meeting, or to keep it on the AC docket and continuing working on the proposal.

The motion to select it as a draft policy failed with 7 against, and 4 in favor (DF, SL, BS, JS) via roll call.

The Chair requested SL to work with MA to provide text to ARIN staff for the email that will be sent to PPML explaining AC actions taken. DA and RS also volunteered to work with them.

The President noted to the AC the importance of explaining to the community why this was not selected as a draft policy and that it can be petitioned.

Nate Davis also urged that an AC member contact the author to inform him of the AC’s decision, before the message is sent to the community. The Chair and SL agreed with SL stating he would work with MA to ensure the author was duly informed.

8. Proposal 113: IPv6 for 6rd

As MA was the shepherd, but not on this teleconference, HS provided an update stating that MA was still working with the author.

It was moved by HS, and seconded by SH, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “IPv6 for 6rd”, 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 any discussion. DF stated he needed to leave the meeting at this time (4:41 PM EDT).

SL asked HS if the text was close to being ready, or if it required revisions. HS clarified that the controversy has been over whether or not this proposal is a valid idea with regard to what to do with address space, not the text itself.

DA queried if there was an advantage to sending this proposal and proposal 118 forward to get them both involved, versus discussing one or the other. SL felt there was an advantage to both and to let the community know there are 2 options. He stated he personally was not clear which proposal was the better option.

The Chair felt this proposal should move forward noting that he had not seen any comments regarding editing the text. He felt it would be beneficial to have discussion at the ARIN meeting.

The motion carried with 8 in favor 2 against (DA, RS) via roll call.

9. Proposal 115: Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post-Exhaustion

It was moved by SL, and seconded by BS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post-Exhaustion,’ 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 felt revisions needed to be made in light of the staff comments, and needed to be made by the authors as soon as possible. He felt it very important that this proposal move forward in order for ARIN to be in sync with the other regions. The Chair stated that the author had made edits, and had forwarded them to the proposal AC shepherds. The Chair stated this proposal should be ready to move forward for discussion at the ARIN meeting.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

10. Proposal 116: Permitted Uses of Space Reserved under NRPM 4.10

TZ stated that he felt this proposal was ready for the AC’s docket, but not for draft policy selection. He stated if the motion failed, a motion should be made to place it on the AC’s docket.

It was moved by TZ, and seconded by SL, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Permitted Uses of Space Reserved under NRPM 4.10’, 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. DA was against motion as he felt it not appropriate that ARIN policy dictate any specific architecture or method; and, that this proposal does specify what’s an acceptable method for what a network uses from v4 to v6. He was unsure as to what deficiencies in current policy this proposal is trying to rectify, and as to the purpose of this proposal.

SL agreed with much of what DA stated; however, he did feel it was timely and unless it was an obviously bad idea, the community should have the opportunity to discuss it. He stated that there was not a lot of discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and that this policy, if moved forward, would need revising.

SH stated she was also against adoption of the original 4.10 and opposed this policy as well. She was in opposition to reserving a /10 out of the last /8 because it was unnecessary, and this proposal dictates the same idea.

The motion failed with 8 against and 2 in favor (SL, TZ) via roll call.

It was moved by SL, and seconded by BS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Permitted Uses of Space Reserved under NRPM 4.10’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. The President noted that if the motion fails, the AC needs to be very clear in explaining to the community why it did so before the community had a chance to discuss it.

The Chair noted this proposal has a unique situation in that OD, who was not on this teleconference, is both the author and the shepherd; and, as any author can, OD can petition this proposal.

BS found the fact that the author is also a shepherd could possibly be a conflicting situation. The Chair explained that under the new Policy Development Process (PDP), it is acceptable. The President stated that the PDP Committee is currently discussing this type of situation. The Chair also stated it would be an item for discussion during the AC’s workshop in October.

The motion to accept the proposal to the AC’s docket failed with 7 against, and 3 in favor (SL, BS, TZ) via roll call.

It was moved by SL, and seconded by SH, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Permitted Uses of Space Reserved under NRPM 4.10’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that given the timeliness of IPv4 depletion, it’s better to take a clear action on the proposal and let it be petitioned. BS agreed with SL. SH stated that eventually this text will become a moot point, as IPv4 will deplete before the proposal becomes necessary.

The President stated it was proper form to abandon it, but not necessary technically. SL stated it was necessary to send a clear signal to the community, and the Chair agreed. He stated the AC was mandated to take an action.

The motion to abandon the proposal carried with 9 in favor, and 1 against (TZ) via roll call.

11. Proposal 117: Required Resource Reviews

MC stated that OD revised the text last week pursuant to staff comments. There were comments on the PPML primarily criticizing the report, with regards to uncertainty as to why ARIN would be forced into taking action. The President noted that staff comments had been completed, but that the legal review is pending as there is a need to understand how frequently reviews would be needed and the extent of the reviews. He stated at this point ARIN cannot determine if this is the will of the community. SL agreed that community support is unknown.

It was moved by MC, and seconded by SL, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Required Resource Reviews,’ 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. DA did not see a sense of urgency and would support a motion to place on the AC’s docket only. SL stated there is benefit but some aspects were controversial and not useful – like requiring a resource review on every transfer. He felt moving it forward would be beneficial and that revisions could be made between now and the cut off date for the ARIN meeting. He noted revisions could also be made after the meeting.

TZ felt it draconian and did not like telling staff what it has to do. HS agreed and was concerned it will create significant work for staff. She suggested making the text more specific to limit cases and possibilities. BS agreed stating he was wary of requirements and increased workload on staff. SH stated she will vote in favor even though she did not believe in its intent. She stated there is a lot of talk among the community and this proposal needs to be discussed. CM agreed.

DA stated he was not opposed to discussing the proposal topic, but felt there was a disconnect between proposals being on the AC’s docket versus becoming a draft policy and discussing adoption. He felt once it is a draft policy, the AC gets bogged down with editing the language and he did not see this as beneficial. He felt it should be on the AC’s docket and discussed during the ARIN Open Policy Hour, rather than being discussed as a draft policy on the ARIN meeting agenda. He felt that would be premature.

The motion carried 8 in favor, 2 against (DA, TZ) via roll call.

12. IPv6 Subsequent Allocation

SL stated his understanding regarding this proposal was that MA received feedback that this matter should not be limited to 6rd, but more general. HS agreed and stated that the 6rd proposal applied only to initial allocations and thus was more limited. DA stated this was in response to objections over the 6rd proposal with regard to the point that ARIN policy should not advocate specific technology. Proposal 118, however, is agnostic to any particular technology and leaves it open for staff interpretation.

It was moved by DA, and seconded by SL, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘IPv6 Subsequent Allocation,’ 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. DA explained that he felt, not only because of proposal 113, there is an actual urgency to this matter. If it does not make it to the ARIN meeting it will cause problems since IPv4 will deplete before the ARIN meeting in 2011; and, the community will need the alternative policy to 6rd.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call

13. Any Other Business

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

14. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:40 PM EDT. It was moved by SH, and seconded by RS, to adjourn. The motion carried with no objections