Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 13 April 2011 [Archived]

San Juan, Puerto Rico

Attendees:

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

Minute Taker

• Susan Hamlin

ARIN Staff:

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

Counsel:

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:20 pm EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. CA requested a discussion of meeting head table behavior. BS requested a discussion of AC participation regarding show of hands during the meeting. The Chair added these items to Any Other Business.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of March 15, 2011, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. ARIN-2011-1: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVII 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 ARIN-2011-1: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy as revised and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion.

MH moved to postpone indefinitely the motion to send the draft policy to last call. BS seconded.

CA stated her opposition to the motion as she felt there was clear direction from the community that they wanted the AC to work on it. BS stated he felt it was not so clear when he looked at the questions raised, they seemed to have asked contradictory questions. He was in favor of postponing the policy indefinitely. CM was in favor of the motion to discuss it at the ARIN in Philadelphia in October. He stated that the Community wants us to work on it and take the time to figure it out. MH stated he wanted to postpone the proposal indefinitely, but keep it on the AC’s agenda to continue working on it, and then move it forward.

OD stated that, procedurally, the AC could vote the amendment down. SL stated he was in opposition to the motion. He argued that the second question put to the room during the ARIN XXVII meeting did not imply restrictions. His sense of the community was that they were in favor of inter-regional transfers as long as they are needs based. He noted APNIC allows inter-regional transfers, and the timing of the next APNIC meeting is important.

CG felt the questions asked were clear, and that the community wants the AC to move the proposal forward. SH stated that the AC does not need to take action based on what APNIC is doing. She did not like indefinitely postponing the proposal, but also did not feel the AC should or needed to rush it. OD stated he found community support for the policy, and would like some more wording on the policy to add specific direction for staff. He was opposed to postponing.

RS felt postponing to a certain time limit was preferable. BD agreed that there was community support, and no ambiguity in the questions that were raised. MH stated that it seems clear that there is a difference of opinion, and that they did not have agreement as to whether RFC 2050 remains a viable basis for policy. Postponement is a more realistic action than abandonment.

DF stated he was against MH’s amendment to postpone indefinitely, and was not in support of discussing it at the next ARIN meeting in October. He stated he wanted it done before October.

BS stated he did not have overwhelming support for the policy, but rather he supported concept. SL stated that if ARIN does not allow inter-regional transfers this year, people would go outside the RIR system. He was against the amendment. MH stated that while the situation in APNIC is well understood, ARIN is not required to act.

CM moved to call the vote on the amended motion to postpone sending the proposal to last call. MH seconded.

The Chair called for discussion. SL objected as he felt there were more opinions to be voiced.

Hearing no further comments, the Chair asked if all were in favor of immediately voting on the amended motion to postpone sending the proposal to last call, or to continue discussion.

The motion to vote on the amended motion, failed via show of hands, with 8 opposed to the postponement and 7 in favor.

The Chair called for further discussion. BS spoke with regard to SL’s comment about individuals obtaining transfers outside of the RIR system - that it would happen regardless and did not see the need to rush this proposal.

SH suggested a friendly amendment to postpone the motion to send the draft policy to last call until the next regularly scheduled AC meeting, seconded by BS.

The Chair called for discussion. The friendly amendment was accepted with no objections.

The Chair called for a roll call vote on the motion to postpone the main motion:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVII 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 ARIN-2011-1: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy as revised and moves to it to Last Call.”, until the next regularly scheduled AC meeting.

The motion carried via roll call with 9 in favor (MC, DF, MH, SH, CM, BS, HS, RS, JS) and 6 against (DA, CA, BD, OD, CG, SL).

The Chair stated the shepherds should continue to work on this proposal before next AC meeting in May.

5. ARIN-2011-2: Protecting Number Resources

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVII 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, abandons Draft Policy ARIN-2011-2: Protecting Number Resources. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for any discussion. SL stated that ARIN staff had indicated they were going to do this regardless and did not need a policy. He felt ARIN staff would do the right thing operationally.

The motion carried via roll call with 14 in favor (DA, CA, MC, BD, OD, DF, CG, MH, SH, SL, CM, BS, RS, JS), and 1 against (HS).

6. ARIN-2011-3: Better v6 Allocation for ISPs

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVII 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 ARIN-2011-3: Better v6 Allocation for ISPs as revised and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for any discussion. HS stated she was opposed to moving it to last call at this time due to the significant changes proposed to the text. CM agreed. BS also was opposed for the same reasons stating he felt work should continue. MH also agreed.

RS stated he felt it was better than what is currently in place. He stated there was not much downside to having a ‘non-ideal’ IPv6 policy in place. He acknowledged it is a big document, but felt that it could be moved forward and revised afterwards. CG agreed with RS. He stated that although the ARIN meeting 20-17 vote was a tie, look back at other proposals of similar length - this is a favorable outcome. There is strong sentiment for the concept.

SL was in favor of motion, agreeing with RS and CG. He believed the AC has done the vast majority of the work to get it where the community wants it. CA stated she had not had a chance to digest the changes, and was against the motion. She felt the AC should take the time as a group, and postpone it to the next AC meeting in May.

CA moved to postpone sending the proposal to last call until the next regularly scheduled AC meeting. CM seconded the motion.

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion to postpone moving the proposal to last call, and discussing it at the next AC meeting in May, failed via show a of hands with 11 against and 4 in favor.

The Chair stated the original motion to move the proposal forward to last call was on the table and called for discussion. MH stated he had an stated that he had an ethical obligation to the community and to others which required him not to vote on the proposal either way, since he had not been able to read the changes prior to the AC meeting. He noted that the update had not been posted until 11:43 a.m. EDT today. DF stated he was in favor of the original motion to move the proposal forward to last call, as the proposal incorporated important changes that a large part of the community wanted. BD was in favor of the original motion stating that the AC will be able to deal with any issues in last call.

HS felt the changes are too significant to move forward to last call and was against the motion. She stated a delay would not be harmful. CA reiterated she had not had time to digest the changes and was against moving it forward. CM was opposed to the motion to move it forward. SH agreed with MH and stated she will abstain. BS stated he had not read it and was conflicted as to what he thought.

The Chair pointed out that voting against the motion puts the proposal back to the AC to continue working on it.

The original motion to move the proposal to last call carried via roll call with 7 in favor (MC, BD, OD, DF, SL, CG, RS), 5 against (DA, CA, CM, HS, JS) and 3 abstentions (MH, SH, BS).

7. ARIN-2011-4: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVII 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 ARIN-2011-4: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for any discussion. CG voiced his support, but wanted to make sure his understanding was correct: that at the point of ARIN IPv4 exhaustion, there will be a /16 reserved for critical infrastructure and that it will not shrink the current pool. The President stated that at the time this policy is implemented, ARIN will take a /16 worth of address space and reserve it for critical infrastructure - and nothing else will be held under reservation.

CG reiterated his support for the motion. CM stated his support for the motion. MH agreed that the intent of this policy was as the President had explained; and, that the policy is set to expire in 36 months although it could always be extended if needed. SL noted that changes were made to the text that were not incorporated into the frozen text but posted on the AC Wiki. He noted that the AC was referring to the text on their Wiki, not what was published in the discussion guide.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

8. ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVII 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 ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension and moves to it to Last Call.”

CA voiced opposition stating that she did not think ARIN should reserve space for a small portion of the community. MH voiced opposition stating that they were too late in requesting this, and they should use the transfer policy to get space if need be.

CG supported the motion, stating that this impacts a larger portion of our community than stated here. He felt a /10 strikes the correct balance. SH stated that many people had approached her this week in favor of this draft policy. DF voiced support in favor, but reminded the AC that the President had stated that ARIN could not move to implement this policy without first seeking guidance from IAB and IESG due to RFC 2860 language regarding technical assignments.

The President indicated that we do not know if the support of the ARIN community would be considered persuasive in this matter, and that it will require a liaison with the IAB to determine. RS stated he was familiar with the problem, and has yet to hear an argument that RFC 1918 can’t be used, except for a few hotspots, and that he could not support the motion.

OD stated that he has spoken with number of providers who say they really do need this. They have a different perspectives and he understands their challenges. He felt it needs to get done, and that the providers will be able to come in with requests to get more than a /10.

CM stated he was not in favor, noting that IPv6 ops and APNIC had dropped this on the floor. He was not sure that even if we assign a /10 it will not be enough, and should be concerned that to some extent this would be a global policy. HS stated her opposition to the policy as it effectively creates global RFC 1918 space. It would not prevent people from requesting address space. MH agreed and stated he was against it. CA also stated she was not in favor.

CG stated that the AC should be looking at what the community is asking us to do noting that there is support – the numbers were 2 to 1 in favor. We are going to use up all the IPv4 space - this space is actually needed, and if they don’t get it they will use something else.

SL stated he was initially reluctant, but now was in support to move forward. He acknowledged that there does seem to be a real need, and posed the question that given ARIN has five /8s, what is the most responsible stewardship? This is so people do not request more space than they need.

CA stated she supported making good policy, not just pushing through what the community numbers indicated. MH agreed that there is need, stating that this is more of a global policy than anything else, and there is also the issue of fairness. Some need it and can’t get it, let the others come back every three months to get space. He stated that he was still not in favor and felt a compromise would be a beneficial.

DF felt it was fair making more addresses in the global pool, and agreed with SL regarding the least worst-case scenario. RS stated that the real thing that would cause less space would be for companies to hire someone to administer their RFC 1918 space.

The Chair asked for a roll call vote on the motion to move this policy to last call.

The motion carried via roll call with 7 in favor (DF, MC, BD, OD, CG, CM, SL), 5 against (CA, MH, BS, HS, RS), and 3 abstentions (DA, SH, JS).

The Chair stated that believed the policy was needed and wanted to hear the AC member’s comments first. He stated he abstained because he worked for an MSO. DA stated that since there were sufficient opinions both for and against, and his employer stands to benefit, it presents a conflict. SH stated she was in the same situation.

9. ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVII 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 ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses as revised and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF voiced support noting that it was good stewardship not to give addresses back to IANA before there was a global policy for IANA to reissue space in place. OD stated his support, but felt the AC should make an extensive statement to the community as to why they are moving this to last call.

DA spoke against the motion. He felt the room vote reflected a different community point of view, and that existing staff practice is appropriate until a global policy is passed.

SL voiced support for the motion, stating that the text is a significant change reflecting the sentiment of the community. He felt the community doesn’t want space in limbo at IANA. CG and CA voiced support for the motion and agreed with SL.

The motion carried via roll call with 13 in favor (CA, MC, OD, DF, CG, MH, SH, SL, CM, BS, HS, RS, JS), and 2 against (DA, BD).

10. ARIN-Prop-126: Compliance Requirement

CG reported that an update could wait until the next AC meeting in May. All agreed.

11. ARIN-Prop-137: Global Policy for Post-Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘IPv6 Global Policy for Post-Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for any discussion. SL supported the motion stating that it is important to work with the other regions on a global policy. MH and OD opposed the motion, stating it was a waste of time, as it would not move forward. SH voiced opposition with regard to clarity stated that other regions have said no to ARIN’s needs. She was against the motion.

CA voiced support noting that as less space becomes available, we might see more movement from other RIRs on this issue. CG and DF voiced support, stating it was important to show a good faith effort to work on a global policy, especially because of moving ARIN-2011-6 forward to last call.

The motion carried via roll call with 14 in favor (DA, CA, MC, BD, OD, DF, CG, SH, SL, CM, BS, HS, RS, JS), and 1 against (MH).

MH left the room at this time (4:03 p.m. EDT).

12. ARIN-Prop-138: IPv6 Size Category Alignment

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘IPv6 Size Category Alignment’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for any discussion. CA stated she did not necessarily agree with the categories, but it was worth discussing. HS felt this is a matter for the Board as it deals with fees, and she was against the motion. DF asked if there are any suggestions in the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process relating to this issue. The President explained that the Board has recommended that ARIN not have a fee category that does not have a policy to match. He stated that if these allocations make sense, the AC should move forward and then ARIN will make a fee category.

HS stated that this has nothing to do with policy of an allocation, and has everything to do with billing. It is not for the AC or community to decide and again spoke in opposition.

CM stated he was also against putting it on the docket, however if there is allocation policy then it should be put on the docket. DF felt it should be put on the docket in case 2011-3 doesn’t progress, then something will need to be done. As it is written, it is about billing, but it does not have to be. SL stated that there was a policy proposal to create a STLS and we then decided it was operational, and we decided to abandon it. It will only add non-policy matter to the Number Resource Policy Manual and this is not a policy. He voiced opposition to the motion.

The motion to add to the docket failed, via roll call, with 9 against (DA, BD, OD, CG, SH, SL, BS, HS,JS ) and 5 in favor (CA, MC, DF, CM, RS).

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘IPv6 Size Category Alignment’, 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 via roll call, with 12 in favor (DA, CA, BD, OD, DF, CG, SH, SL, CM, BS, HS, JS), and 2 against (MC, RS).

CA stated she would provide statement to AC list regarding the reasoning for abandonment by Friday, April 15, 2011. DA suggested the AC take this to the arin-discuss list, rather than leaving it up to the author. He felt this would better illustrate the AC’s view that it is a worthy topic for discussion, just not as policy.

BS left the room at this time (4:18 p.m. EDT).

13. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. CA opened a discussion on proper meeting head table decorum by those seated there during the meetings. The President stated he would take the AC’s thoughts to the Board. The AC stated that they would self-police, and hoped the Board would do the same.

BS re-joined the meeting at this time (4:30 p.m. EDT).

BS asked for clarification on the agreed upon procedure for AC members to participate in policy-related show of hands during the meetings. The Chair noted that the AC did not have a standing rule on the matter. Others recognized that they attend ARIN meetings serving two roles, as a representative for their company and as an Advisory Council member.

The President asked the group if ARIN should look into having electronic counting in the room at future meetings. He asked for an AC decision in the next couple of months so it could be added into the budget if desired.

17. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:41 p.m. EDT. BD moved to adjourn and CA seconded. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.