Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 19 May 2011 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair (JS)
• Scott Leibrand, Vice Chair (SL)
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• 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

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst (EB)
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis, COO (ND)

Counsel:

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Apologies:

• Cathy Aronson, Marc Crandall

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted. It was noted that HS and John Curran would be delayed as they were attending a conflicting LACNIC policy working group and would join the call as soon as was possible. It was also noted that RS would be delayed due to a scheduling conflict.

2. Agenda Bashing

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

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of April 13, 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

At the AC’s last meeting on April 13, 2011, this motion was postponed until this current, regularly scheduled AC meeting. The Chair noted this motion had been postponed. The Chair read the motion:

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. BD stated that this policy is no longer intended as a global policy and should be renamed to “Inter-Regional Transfer Policy” with the current wording. BD read the current text to the AC. He stated he supported moving that text and the new title forward. OD stated it precluded inbound transfers and asked about ARIN registrants versus other Regional Internet Registry (RIR) registrants. BD did not see the value of suggesting others transferring resources in, and did not believe the policy could state it. He asked if the word “ARIN” was left out and only reflected “resource registrant’ would that solve the issue? OD stated that would be correct, as it should be symmetrical. BD agreed that if ‘ARIN’ was removed from the text it would be symmetrical and it would work. He noted that the intent of the text is that ARIN is not precluding the fact that it is willing to take other RIR transfers. OD noted that the two RIRs involved have to agree. The Chair noted that it is an ARIN policy allowing ARIN registrants to receive or transfer to other RIRs. It would suppose that another RIR has a similar policy. BD stated this revision in the text would allow it. SL stated that it currently exists in that the APNIC transfer policy allows it. There may not be a lot of demand, but there is no reason to preclude it if the demand is there.

BD supported change to remove ‘ARIN’ for ‘any RIR resource registrant’. DF suggested that it read “any ARIN, or other RIR, resource registrant”. He stated this would leave ‘ARIN’ in the policy, but it would not tie it only to ARIN by adding the ‘or…’ phrase. SL believed it was important to be as close as possible to the originally discussed text. He supported the change to remove ‘ARIN’ for ‘any RIR resource registrant’ because it is was a clarification that fixes a typographical error, and keeps the text as close as possible to what was discussed at the last PPM. BD agreed stating that the original text stated ‘any RIR’. It was the sense of AC to revise the text to remove ‘ARIN’ for ‘any RIR resource registrant’.

BS stated he continued to be concerned that this is too much word-smithing, and was against the motion for that reason alone, not against the policy. Rushing the proposal through the process was a concern. The Chair stated that the AC needed to discuss and try to revise the language to community’s preference, although BS’s concern was noted.

DA was opposed, stating that the AC already saw how different the interpretation of section 8.3 has been implemented and that it is a local policy. This policy opens up a number of holes on a global scale and word-smithing in Last Call won’t help when the implications are not clear. This policy has issues such as: RSA, interpretation of need, transfers between registrants, etc. He stated he could not support it to move forward as there were too many unknown issues.

DF respected DA’s comments but asked what happens if the proposal does not make it to Last Call. DA suggested that until there is alternative, clarifying language, the AC keeps working on it. Currently, it can be interpreted in too many different ways.

The Chair noted that the proposal could need to go through another Public Policy Meeting (PPM) or be abandoned and a new proposal crafted. DA stated that he did not believe there are a couple tweaks to be done that can make this proposal acceptable. He felt it needed serious rethinking, and a lot of work. DF asked if he was suggesting no Last Call and either to abandon it, or perform major work on it, and returned it to the PPM in October. DA stated that was his intent. DF stated that if that is what the AC wants to do, he would support it.

BS reiterated that he was not of the opinion that on the AC’s monthly calls, the AC should be doing significant amounts of word-smithing – we should come together on motions and discuss and vote on motions. He felt there was plenty of time in between the monthly calls to work on text. MH agreed. CG stated that it is a great idea and we can work together outside of the monthly calls, but he felt that short of having a dedicated time outside of the monthly calls, the AC could avoid word-smithing on the monthly calls.

The Chair stated that when it comes down to changing one word, that’s not a big deal. But he did not think the AC should rewrite policies on the monthly calls.

SH stated that putting it to Last Call sends a message that it is on the path toward Board adoption. She did not support this proposal, and would not like the community to interpret that it is on the path toward adoption. She was happy to keep it on the docket.

SL was in favor of the motion. He believed the community did express support for moving this forward - a policy proposal to allow inter-regional transfers. There have been no suggestions to the better of what we currently have, and it is a bit urgent. He felt it needed to be in place for other RIRs to respond to. He felt it needed to move forward and then the AC could discuss ways to improve it. He suggested considering amendments at the PPM in October, per the email threads that J. Curran had started. He felt that it would be stating that our needs are more important than others if we did not forward the proposal, and that is the wrong message to send.

Hearing no further comments the Chair called for a roll call vote.

The motion to forward to Last Call failed with 8 against (DA, OD, DF, MH, SH, CM, BS, JS) and 3 in favor (SL, BD, CG) via roll call.

The Chair asked the shepherds if they wanted to continue to work on it or start over.

BD suggested that the people who voted against it answer that question. If there is major work to be done, those people need to provide their thoughts on the deficiencies that they feel exist, which could be modified by revising the language. He stated he could not, as a shepherd of the proposal, do any revisions without this support. MH stated that he had posted his thoughts to the AC’s list, but would be happy to provide more input if needed. DA felt the proposal should stay on the AC’s docket, and would work on clarifying the issues. He stated that the proposal touches on many other pieces and the AC needs to be careful when revising the language.

DF stated his intent was to continue to work on the proposal, keeping it on the AC’s docket and returning it to the PPM in October. CG did not feel the AC could cover every possible scenario.

The Chair stated that the proposal would remain on the AC’s docket. The Chair asked BD to specifically ask for input from the AC on how this policy proposal could be enhanced and reworded to support other perspectives that are in their minds now and for future possibilities. He asked BD to forward the text to the AC list for discussion, and that he will make a good effort to incorporate his own thoughts into it also.

It was moved by MH, and seconded by BS, 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 during the Last Call period, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, abandons ARIN-2011-1: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy as revised. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. SH stated that while she had expressed that she does not agree with the policy, and that it should stay in our region, she agreed with DA that it would be impolitic of the AC to abandon it. She was opposed to the motion.

Hearing no further comments the Chair called for a roll call vote.

The motion to abandon failed with 9 against (SL, DA, BD, OD, DF, CG, SH, CM, JS) and 2 in favor (MH, BS) via roll call.

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

It was moved by DF, and seconded by OD, 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 during the Last Call period, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, supports ARIN-2011-3: Better v6 Allocation for ISPs, as amended, and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that amendments were posted to the AC Wiki, which removed the renumbering requirement. The Chair asked if the amendments were made before Last Call. DF stated that they were made after Last Call, discussed as part of Last Call, and discussed at the recent ARIN XXVII meeting.

DA asked, for the sake of clarity, that someone read the amended text to the Council. OD read the changes. SL stated that he supported the motion, with CM stating the same.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

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

It was moved by SL, and seconded by DF, 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 during the Last Call period, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, supports ARIN-2011-4: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

The Chair called for discussion. There was no discussion.

HS joined the meeting at this time (4:35 p.m. EDT).

The motion carried with 11 in favor (SL, DA, BD, OD, DF, CG, MH, SH, CM, BS, JS) and 1 abstention (HS) via roll call.

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

It was moved by SH, 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 during the Last Call period, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, supports ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

The Chair called for discussion. The AC noted there were 20+ in favor at the ARIN XXVII meeting, and 3 against, but that the people against were open to slight wording changes.

The motion carried with 10 in favor (SL, BD, OD, DF, CG, SH, CM, BS, HS, JS) and 2 abstentions (DA, MH) via roll call. DA noted that he had a conflict of interest, hence the abstention.

RS joined at this time (4:48 p.m. EDT).

8. ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses

It was moved by CG, 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 during the Last Call period, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, supports ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL requested a summary of Last Call. It was read to the AC.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

ARIN President John Curran joined at this time (5:00 p.m. EDT).

9. ARIN-Prop-126: Compliance Requirement

It was moved by CG, and seconded by BD, 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. SL supported the motion and felt it needed discussion at the next PPM in October. The Chair noted that the AC’s list had lively discussion on this proposal. DF asked CG if he envisioned changes between now and the PPM in October based on feedback from the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and if there was support for moving the ’60-day’ piece as discussed on the PPML. CG stated that yes he did foresee the potential for revisions. The Chair reminded the AC that it is important the text posts to the PPML in accordance with the PDP timelines.

DF supported stated he supported the motion.

The motion carried with 8 in favor (SL, DA, BD, OD, DF, CG, HS, JS) and 5 against (MH, SH, CM, BS, RS) via roll call.

Chair asked CG for reminder to send to staff. CG agreed.

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

The Chair asked for a status on this proposal. DF stated that an update was sent to AC’s list earlier today and that he would continue to work on it.

11. ARIN-Prop-139: No Reassignment without Network Service

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘No Reassignment without Network Service’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD supported the motion. DA noted that some opinions appeared to be conflicting - stating the want to avoid speculators, and stating it is irrelevant because the allocations do not need to be connected. He noted the text states if one is allocating space, one should be connected to whomever they are allocating it to. DF felt it a valid question, and that this text and proposal does not deal with the issue in the way he believed it needed to be dealt with; it needs more work.

CG agreed stating this is not the right text, however if the intent is valid, we should revise it. He pointed out that regarding transfers: without any connectivity between the two entities, companies can form subsidiary companies and transfer and lease it back to themselves. This is something that has not been anticipated. If we want that stopped, and the space only used by who is holding it, then we should look at revising the text.

HS said in the interest of accurate WHOIS information, it helps to have a connectivity relationship to handle abuse issues. She stated she was in favor of the idea going forward, but not the text as written.

The motion carried 9 in favor (SL, OD, DF, MH, SH, CM, BS, RS, JS) and 4 against (DA, BD, CG, HS) via roll call.

12. ARIN-Prop-140: Business Failure Clarification

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Business Failure Clarification’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket, replacing ‘should notify’ with ‘must notify’.”

The Chair called for discussion. It was the sense of the AC that the motion to accept the proposal onto the docket should not include any changes to the text. OD agreed withdrawing the stated motion. Then,

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

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

SL stated he supported the revised motion.

The motion carried 9 in favor (SL, DA, BD, OD, DF, CG, CM, BS, HS) and 4 against (MH, SH, RS, JS) via roll call.

13. ARIN-Prop-141: Combined M&A and Specified Transfers

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Combined M&A and Specified Transfers’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated the text had been changed to make it clear it is acceptable to transfer to someone who needs it.

The motion carried 8 in favor (SL, DA, BD, OD, DF, CG, HS, JS), 4 against (SH, CM, BS, RS), and 1 abstention (MH) via roll call.

14. ARIN-Prop-142: Define RSA.

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated he was opposed to the motion. He believed that this policy was a no-op, (non-operation) at best, in that it defines the term RSA (Registration Services Agreement) as ‘any agreement between the RIR and an LIR or End User’. The community had specific intent when they used the term RSA in policy, and this policy is a step in the wrong direction. He stated he would support a policy that defined the RSA in line with the community’s intent contained in the policy. MH stated this policy would have significant and wide reaching impact. He felt it should be on the AC’s docket. He asked about a legal review. The Chair stated that legal reviews are done when the text is to become policy. Counsel stated he had no initial issues with the proposal legally, and that he has no position on it.

BD was opposed to the motion due to the fact that policy proposal is definitional. Definitions are important, but the RSA definition should be adjunct to ARIN’s Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) not in a policy. He did not support definitional policy.

The Chair noted that some PPML postings stated that all RSAs are identical and the author wanted to document that they are not. BD reiterated his belief that it is an operational issue in that perspective, and does not need to be a policy.

RS stated he was unclear as to what actual problem this purports to solve. He believed it did not change anything, and adds language to the NRPM for no good reason that he could see. He was opposed to the motion. SH concurred, also opposed.

The President noted that a policy proposal defining the term “RSA” is fine, but attempts to distinguish versions of the RSA do not belong in a policy document, and is instead an ARIN operational matter. The President indicated that proposals referencing specific RSA versions should be dropped from AC consideration.

The motion to accept onto the AC’s docket failed with 9 against (SL, BD, OD, DF, SH, CM, BS, HS, RS), 3 in favor (DA, CG, JS), and 1 abstention (MH) via roll call.

The President noted that, per the PDP, policy proposals once considered must be either be accepted onto the docket or abandoned. Since this proposal is not being accepted to the docket, the AC is effectively abandoning it.

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

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

The motion to abandon carried with 9 in favor (SL, BD, OD, DF, SH, CM, BS, HS, RS) and 4 against (DA, CG, MH, JS).

The Chair requested the shepherds provide the justification of abandonment to ARIN staff by close of business Monday, May 23rd, so staff can post the announcement to the PPML promptly.

15. ARIN-Prop-143: Clarify Specified Transfer RSA Requirement

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Clarify Specified Transfer RSA Requirement’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. The President stated that the staff clarity and understanding indicates that this is outside the scope of ARIN’s Policy Development Process (PDP); and, that it should be directed to ARIN’s Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP). If it is not abandoned, he cautioned that at some point he would ask the AC to formally abandon it, due to it being out of the scope of the PDP.

The Chair reviewed the clarity and understanding report to the AC. The President stated that ARIN’s registration services staff has no problem implementing policy as written. If we aren’t going to define the RSA, that portion of this proposal clarifies (Registration Services Agreement) that is administrative in nature.

BD had dropped off the call, and rejoined at this time (5:28 pm EDT). BD stated he agreed and supported the motion.

The motion carried with 12 in favor (DA, SL, BD, OD, DF, CG, SH, CM, BS, HS, RS, JS) and 1 abstention (MH) via roll call.

DA stated that 142 and 143 are not on the AC’s docket. He requested to discuss at the next PPM, the issue of the Microsoft transaction, and the concern that Microsoft signing the Legacy Registration Services Agreement (LRSA) created on the PPML. He felt it needed to be discussed, if not in these proposals.

The President clarified that ARIN cannot discuss individual resource requests because of nondisclosure agreements (NDA) in place with organizations.

DA understood, and stated he did not want to discuss the details of the transaction, but to better understand Section 8.3 because when the news of the transaction came out, it confused a lot of people.

The President stated that the LRSA will be discussed at length because there will be a revised one out for discussion at the ARIN PPM in October.

16. ARIN-Prop-144: Remove Single Aggregate Requirement from Specified Transfer

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Remove Single Aggregate Requirement from Specified Transfer’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated the text was posted to the AC’s Wiki with a summary of the community’s feedback. OD stated he was opposed and felt this proposal went away from the community’s intent. He believed it needed to be made enforceable – a single aggregate requirement.

SL stated that the single aggregate requirement needed to be either dramatically reworked to make it workable in the real world, or it needed to be removed. He supported either outcome, but noted that it needed to be on the AC’s docket first to discuss the potential.

The motion carried with 11 in favor (DA, SL, BD, DF, CG, MH, SH, CM, BS, RS, JS), and 2 against (OD, HS) via roll call.

17. ARIN-Prop-145: STLS Listing Immunity

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘STLS Listing Immunity’, 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 that he supported it. Just because it’s in the listing service does not constitute good stewardship. The President stated that no one at ARIN suggested that ARIN would provide blanket immunity, or that at ARIN would harvest STLS people reporting in. At present, people listing resources have that right, short of ARIN engaging in a review, and their doing so is not a trigger condition. It is not a broken problem. He stated concern about the AC making policy for something that is not broken, but would be open to the AC’s viewpoint in this matter.

The motion carried with 12 in favor (DA, SL, BD, OD, DF, CG, SH, CM, BS, HS, RS, JS), and 1 abstention (MH) via roll call.

18. ARIN-Prop-146: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Clarify Justified Need for Transfers’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. The President noted that there are several places in existing policy for parties to qualify for address space, and that the AC should ensure it includes all of those desired, in any revised transfer policy. He cautioned that there are many details, and to be careful if rewriting Section 8.3.

The Chair noted that the vote to be taken is on the 1st version of the policy proposal, and that the AC looks closely at version 2 if this is placed onto the AC’s docket. He noted also that if it were on the docket, it would be done based on the original staff clarity and understanding report. SL stated he had not seen any seen any unacceptable revisions. He was in favor of accepting this version, and the subsequent revisions.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

19. ARIN-Prop-147: Set Transfer Need to 24 Months and Clarify Exception

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Set Transfer Need to 24 Months and Clarify Exception’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. BS stated that he needed to leave at this time (5:56 p.m. EDT).

CG stated that he was opposed to motion and the proposal, as it amends an existing proposal and the AC can consider what this proposal suggests with regard to proposal 146. Proposal 146 can be set to however many months the community would like, and there would not be the need for two proposals to do it.

The Chair suggested the AC merge the 2 proposals together. CG countered, stating he would think that merging them would automatically change the time to 24 months. He suggested abandoning this proposal, and then discussing the ideas of it in regard to proposal 146.

DF stated he was in favor of the motion, pointing out that there will be a lot of discussion at the PPM in October. He felt having multiple policies with understandable ‘chunks’ of the issues was the best way to proceed; although, he understood CG’s points.

The motion carried 9 in favor (DA, SL, BD, OD, DF, MH, CM, RS, JS), and 3 against (CG, SH, HS) via roll call.

20. Any Other Business

The Chair reminded the AC there were 4 new proposals that needed shepherds assigned to them. He stated that for proposal 148, BD and CA were assigned. He called for volunteers for the other 3 proposals, requesting they volunteer via email directly sent to him.

AC Standing Rules. The President explained that the AC adopted a rule regarding petitions that does appear to conflict with the current PDP. Counsel will review it and most likely the Board will need to ratify the AC’s standing rules to make them official. The Board most likely will not ratify the standing rule that keeps the AC out of the petition process. However, this will be in the revised PDP. It is a work in progress due to parliamentary review and legal review.

Once the Board adopts the AC’s standing rules, they will also decide whether the Board or the AC can adopt any future standing rules.

The Chair thanked the President for this explanation.

BD needed to leave at this time (6:06 pm. EDT).

AC Procedures for Minutes. The Chair explained the new procedure that reduces the review period from 10 business days to 5 business days to facilitate a more timely publishing of the Minutes, and works in better harmony with PDP deadlines.

MH needed to leave at this time (6:12 pm EDT).

Brief discussion ensued regarding the revised procedure for the Minutes. It was the sense of the AC this reduction in the review period was acceptable.

21. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 6:13 p.m. HS moved to adjourn, seconded by RS. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.