Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 28 January 2011 [Archived]

Reston, VA

Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Scott Leibrand (SL), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Marc Crandall (MC)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Chris Grundemann (CG)
• Martin Hannigan (MH)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Chris Morrow (CM)
• Bill Sandiford (BS)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)

Minute Taker

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela, Staff Attorney (MA)
• Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst (EB)
• John Curran, President & CEO (JC)
• Nate Davis, Chief COO (ND)
• Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services (LN)

Observers:

• Tim Dention, Chair, ARIN Board
• Paul Andersen, ARIN Board

Counsel:

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:15 pm. EST. The presence of quorum was noted, with Martin Hannigan joining telephonically. MC needed to step out of the meeting at this time.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for comments. He stated that any motions on, and updates to, the AC’s standing rules would be made under any other business.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of October 27, 2010, as written.”

The Chair called for comments. It was noted that the AC had reviewed these minutes in October 2010, however, due to a typographical error on the November agenda, the AC never officially approved them.

The motion carried with no objections.

B) It was moved by SL, and seconded by OD, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of December 16, 2010, as written.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. ARIN-2010-8: Rework of IPv6 Assignment Criteria

The ARIN Board of Trustees adopted this Draft Policy at their meeting on January 11, 2011. It was noted it would be implemented before the ARIN meeting in April.

5. ARIN-2010-14: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements

It was moved by CA, 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 ARIN-2010-14: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

The Chair called for discussion. DA stated he was opposed, explaining there is still no consensus between groups over the level of detail that should go into WHOIS, and that IPv6 only complicates things further. Going into IPv6 there are too many open questions. DF stated he thought it made things better, but that it may not be enough. He felt it was heading in the right direction, but was marginally opposed. CA felt it filled the need by DSL providers to be under same policy as other providers. SL suggested the AC take another look at the remaining gaps, and craft another proposal to address them; but felt this text moves in the right direction.

MC rejoined the meeting at this time.

The motion carried with 1 against (DA) and 1 abstention (MC) due to lack of presence during the discussion.

6. ARIN-Prop-119: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Globally Coordinated 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. DF stated he had serious reservations about it, but moving it forward as a draft and discussing it was worth it. SL also felt it worth discussing. He noted that APNIC has a non-globally coordinated policy, and considering that, it may be appropriate to have inter-RIR transfers, but felt moving this forward was appropriate. CG spoke to that point stating he did not know the statement precludes it from being bilateral. The timetable can be tweaked to make it work. SL supported editing the language if necessary.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

7. ARIN-Prop-120: Protecting Number Resources

SL stated he had made minor editorial changes, but the version on the AC Wiki was the same as what was sent to AC and sent for staff/legal assessment. He stated the proposal is ready to be selected as a draft policy. LN confirmed that the staff and legal assessments were completed on all the proposals on this agenda.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Protecting Number Resources’, 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. OD supported moving it forward. DA asked why a policy proposal was required because wasn’t this covered under the Registration Service Agreement? SL stated that ARIN has authority to do it, and that ARIN currently reacts to fraud reports, but if there are other issues that need attention, you need a policy to clarify what level of effort is needed on ARIN’s part. Leo Bicknell and CG both proposed text, and the AC merged them. This text requests ARIN to exercise authority. DA thanked him for the explanation. JC stated that the AC needed to tell him what level of effort they are seeking. The Board will guide ARIN on what to do with cost reductions, unless the AC feels it is important to do more. He asked the AC how many people they thought would be needed from ARIN staff and he would inform the Board.

SL stated he had updated the policy with a clause that provides clarity. He stated it leaves it up to staff and Board discretion with feedback from the membership. ARIN will update the membership at the Public Policy Meeting (PPM). He stated the AC would rather not set the level of effort. Discussion ensued with the sense of the AC to move the proposal forward, as the community has requested it and the community should decide.

The motion carried with 2 against (SH, RS) via roll call.

8. ARIN-Prop-121: Better v6 Allocation for ISPs

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Better v6 Allocation for ISPs’, 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. CG and SL stated they were in support of the motion.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

9. ARIN-Prop-123: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure’, 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 that there was a lot of support on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and the text has been edited per staff comments and is ready.

The motion carried via roll call with 1 against (SH) and 1 abstention (RS because he works for a organization that provides critical infrastructure).

10. ARIN-Prop-126: Compliance Requirement

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Compliance Requirement’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. It was noted that this proposal would not be discussed at the PPM, as it needed more work. Discussion ensued on whether the intent was to be present this at the PPM or not; and the consequence of the timing of this proposal in the policy development process for the April PPM. It was the sense of the AC to add the proposal to their docket.

The motion to accept on docket carried unanimously via roll call.

It was the sense of the AC to make a motion to accept it as a draft policy to ascertain whether or not it should be discussed at the April PPM.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Compliance Requirement’, 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 did not support adopting this text for discussion if it was not ready. SL supported the motion. He felt it could be ready in time for the meeting in April. He stated he did not like withholding things for discussion for minor issues. DA stated he was opposed.

The motion to adopt it for discussion on the PPML and at the PPM, failed with 12 against and three in favor (SL, MC, MH) via roll call.

11. ARIN-Prop-127: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. SH stated she and CG reviewed it again and there were literally 100 posts to the proposal, and it deserves to be discussed and put on docket. DA asked if ARIN has a mechanism to allocate space, but not to anyone in particular? LN replied that ARIN must allocate to an organization; ARIN cannot allocate to no one. DA stated in that case, someone has to justify the allocation and make a request for others to use it. LN stated it would be registered to the organization; and, everyone would use it. ARIN could register it as ARIN, however it would increase the number of spam.

The President stated that if the community wants it, ARIN will figure out a way to get it done; and that the issue of the implementation of how to reserve it should not get in the way.

The motion carried with 3 against (CA, HS, RS) via roll call.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension’, 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 stated this had been discussed numerous times at IETF. He stated he would abstain because his organization stands to benefit from it. CM stated that it’s been 15 years and nothing has been done; it needs to happen.

The President explained that, in theory, the registry does not provide this type of service. Given there is a memorandum of understanding between the IETF/IAB and ICANN that affects ARIN, it may not be possible to issue this policy without the IAB’s consent. The IAB needs a chance to state whether or not they object.

It was noted that JC and MH needed to leave the meeting at 3:00 pm. To ensure that they would be able to participate in the entirety of the meeting, the Chair stated he would move the 2:30 pm scheduled break to 3:00 pm.

The motion to select it as a draft policy carried with 10 in favor, 3 against (CA, HS, RS) and 2 abstentions (DA, JS) via roll call.

12. ARIN-Prop-128: Replacement of Section 4.2.4.4 of the Number Resource Policy Manual

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Replacement of Section 4.2.4.4 of the Number Resource Policy Manual’, 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 supported the motion. HS noted that it would need to be a Board emergency action if there was a significant risk to ARIN. It was the sense of the AC that there would be no significant risk to ARIN. She further noted that comments on the PPML have been in opposition. DF supported the motion. CG felt the current language in the NRPM unfair and places ARIN at some risk.

The motion to abandon carried with 3 against (CG, MH, RS) via roll call.

13. ARIN-Prop-129: IPv4 Addresses for Process Participants

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Addresses for Process Participants’, 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 supported the motion.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

14. ARIN-Prop-130: IPv4 Transition Reservation for Every ASN

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘IPv4 Transition Reservation for Every ASN’, 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.

It was noted that Proposal 131 had come in very late. CA was the primary shepherd and CG was the secondary. This proposal will be discussed at the AC’s next regularly scheduled meeting.

15. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. He stated that discussion of the AC’s standing rules would be addressed at this time.

New Standing Rules.

AC Member Involvement in Petitions.

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

“ARIN Advisory Council members may not initiate, or be counted in support of, petitions as these individuals already have a formally defined role in the Policy Development Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. JC noted that the forthcoming revised draft of the PDP will state this as well. CA stated that the AC makes decisions as a body. If the community needs a petition, someone from the community should step forward to initiate it. It’s proper form. MH disagreed stating that forcing to act as one body is counter to what we are doing. CG agreed with CA and stated that if there is a need for a petition, there should be no problem finding someone to do it, even if it is someone within your own organization. It does not restrict any AC member from voicing their opinion.

The motion carried with 2 against (OD, MH) via roll call.

Number of Candidates for AC Chair.

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

“The AC requests that staff remove the requirement to have multiple candidates for the election of the Chair of the ARIN Advisory Council.”

The Chair called for discussion. BD stated that as long as self-nominations are allowed he agreed with the motion. MC agreed suggesting adding that into the motion. OD accepted the suggestion.

The new motion reads:

“The AC requests that staff remove the requirement to have multiple candidates for the election of the Chair of the ARIN Advisory Council, as long as self-nominations are allowed.”

The motion carried with no objections.

Advisory Council Travel Process.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the following process for choosing which AC members will attend Internet Meetings:

1. The names of AC members in their 3rd year of term will first be selected randomly by ARIN staff and appointed numbers (i.e. 1-5) based on the order in which the names are selected. First name selected is assigned number 1.
2. The names of AC members in their 2nd year of term will then be selected randomly by ARIN staff and appointed subsequent numbers (i.e. 6-10) based on the order in which the names are selected.
3. The names of AC members in their 1st year of term will then be selected randomly by ARIN staff and appointed numbers (i.e. 11-15) based on the order in which the names are selected.”

The Chair called for discussion.

Note: The numbers referenced above may vary slightly based on how many AC members are serving in their first, second and third year of their term.

Once the drawing is complete AC members will be asked to provide the AC Chair their top 3 choices for attending either an RIR or NANOG meeting. The Chair will put together the final list and provide it to the AC as soon as practical. The Chair will personally contact individuals if more choices are needed or for any other clarification that may be needed in order to put together the final list.

BS stated he supported the motion, but felt the concept of this process may cause issues later.

The motion carried with no objections.

16. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 3:02 p.m. EST. SH moved to adjourn and, this was seconded by CA. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.