Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 16 December 2010 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Scott Leibrand (SL), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Marc Crandall (MC)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Chris Morrow (CM)
• Bill Sandiford (BS)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)
• Tom Zeller (TZ)

Minute Taker

• Einar Bohlin

ARIN Staff:

• John Curran, President & CEO (JC)
• Nate Davis, Chief Operations Officer (ND)
• Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services (LN)

ARIN Board of Trustees:

• Paul Andersen (PA)

Counsel:

• Stephen Ryan (SR)

Observers:

• Martin Hannigan

Apologies:

• Marla Azinger, Heather Schiller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:20 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted. He welcomed the observers to the call.

2. Agenda Bashing

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

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of November 18, 2010, as written.”

The Chair called for any objections. There were no comments. The motion carried with no objections.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVI 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 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 Assignment Criteria and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

5. Draft Policy 2010-10: Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post-Exhaustion

The ARIN Board ratified this Draft Policy during their meeting on November 22, 2010

6. Draft Policy 2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation

The ARIN Board ratified this Draft Policy during their meeting on November 22, 2010,

MC joined the call at this time (4:22 p.m. EDT).

7. Draft Policy 2010-14: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements

It was moved by CA, and seconded by OD, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVI 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 2010-14: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements and moves to it to Last Call with the text as revised.”

The Chair called for discussion. CA confirmed the text that is on the AC’s Wiki is the revised text.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

8. Policy Proposal 119: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy

BD reviewed the proposal. He noted that the sense of making needs-based requests per RFC 2050 is understood. The Chair noted that the draft policy text needed to go to ARIN staff by for staff analysis and legal review.

The President stated that the Board requested that Professor Ben Edelman research inter-RIR transfers. Professor Edelman produced a white paper. There is a lot of space in the ARIN region and in other regions, and organizations will try to get that space. Professor Edelman’s paper stated that inter-RIR transfers need to be discussed, keeping in mind stewardship and ARIN’s mission. The transfer to the recipient may be needs-based, but transfers in other regions are based on their local policy (needs-based or not). The ARIN Board needs advice from the AC in regard to the issue of stewardship and needs-based policy, once the number resource goes out of the ARIN region.

SL noted Professor Edelman’s text grapples with this issue. Counsel noted that keeping a reference to RFC 2050 is useful when appropriate - while it doesn’t necessarily have to be in the policy text itself. OD supported removing the RFC 2050 language, as long as the transfer meets the RIRs’ policies. OD stated concern about local RIR policy when space transfers to another region. BD asked if such a thing wouldn’t be fraud. The President stated that transfers in the ARIN region could be zeroed out in the case of fraud. In the case of transfers out of region, based on other RIR’s documentation of need and communicated by them, ARIN may not see any supporting material. There is a need to discuss the process with the RIRs, and be very explicit; but there is no perfect answer. The AC can recommend to the Board how this should work.

BD stated that the existing language is sufficient, and asked to be emailed, should an AC member disagree. SH stated she was in favor of the current, simple, clear language. SL stated he would see if any of Professor Edelman’s text should be incorporated into the policy text.

9. Policy Proposal 120: Protecting Number Resources

SL stated he was hopeful that the authors would consolidate their different versions. If they cannot, then the current text will probably be sent to ARIN staff for analysis. He felt the proposal is worthy of discussion, and that it should go forward to the Public Policy Meeting. MC agreed.

10. Policy Proposal 121: Sensible v6 Allocation for ISPs

It was moved by DF, and seconded by BD, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Sensible v6 Allocation for ISPs’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. SH suggested removing the word “sensible” from the proposal title, suggesting that terms such as new, revised, or improved would be better. OD agreed. SL supported adding this to the AC’s docket. DA noted that this proposal could impact many organizations, including large ISPs.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

11. Policy Proposal 122: Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Reserved Pool for Future Policy Development’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. RS supported abandoning the proposal. OD agreed, stating that the proposal is not an improvement. DF supported the intent, but noted that this proposal is useless without emergency action.

12. Policy Proposal 123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL suggested this policy proposal go through the normal PDP. He stated that, based on current projections, there will be a /16 available. RS noted that there is a current critical infrastructure (CI) block. He felt that the proposal may be redundant and wondered if reserved CI space would become regular space and be returned to the free pool at run out. RS requested staff to report how much is left, and would the space be treated differently at run out. He stated that CI is currently limited to IXes, and root and TLD name servers. It is not clear that this proposal serves the CI community.

The Chair asked LN what the specific blocks are for CI. How much is left? Would it stay for CI at run out or would the status change? How much is in use? LN explained that the micro-allocation site shows exactly what is in use, and stated that there are 572 /24s, and 324 /23s available for CI. She stated that staff’s understanding is to maintain that space for CI. DF stated he was in favor of adding this proposal to the AC’s docket.

The President noted that the CI policy does not require that ARIN keep that space reserved for CI, and the AC should provide guidance on this issue. OD speculated if it was fair to hold that space for CI when nothing else is left.

The motion carried with 12 in favor and 1 abstention (RS) via roll call.

13. Policy Proposal 124: Clarification of Section 4.2.4.4

DF asked if ARIN can change its understanding of the policy without changing the text. The President replied no - that the policy text has been in the NRPM for some time. Policy has to be followed when the request is made, as well as when the request is fulfilled. TZ agreed with the current ARIN understanding of the policy text. DA asked LN how many requests are currently in the queue. LN stated one or two, not many. DA noted that this is a lot of effort for only a handful of requests. The Chair pointed out that he recently requested responses on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) to comment on the emergency nature of these proposals. CA said the proposal would actually encourage people to jump into the queue.

It was then moved by DF, and seconded by BD, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Clarification of Section 4.2.4.4’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF requested that comments regarding the abandonment be sent to him so that he can prepare a statement for the community.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

14. Policy Proposal 125: Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual Stack

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Efficient Utilization of IPv4 Requires Dual Stack’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. DA stated that ARIN’s role is to manage number resources, and that the proposal is about implementation of a protocol - which is not ARIN’s job. OD agreed with DA. SL noted that the proposal seems to be unworkable, without the intended effect. DF was in favor of the proposal, noting that there was support on the PPML for the concept, and that something good might be able to come from this. CA and SH agree with DA.

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

15. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. TZ wished the AC well in 2011.

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

“The AC thanks TZ and MA for their service, and wishes them well in their future endeavors.”

The motion carried by acclamation.

16. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:38 p.m. EST. SH moved to adjourn, seconded by CA. The motion carried with no objections.