Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 21 July 2011 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

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

Minute Taker

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

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

Counsel:

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Regrets:

• Chris Morrow

Absent:

• Owen DeLong, Heather Schiller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

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

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of June 23, 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

RS stated it is ready for the ARIN XXVIII Public Policy Meeting (PPM) in Philadelphia in October. The Chair requested that if the final wording is ready to please send it to him for another staff and legal review as a final check. RS agreed to do so.

5. ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement

CG stated that it is ready for the PPM. The Chair again requested that if the final wording is ready to please send it to him for another staff and legal review as a final check. CG agreed to do so.

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

DF stated the text was not sent out due to conflicts in his busy schedule and that he would send the text shortly to the Chair to request a staff and legal review.

7. ARIN-Prop-140: Business Failure Clarification

The Chair stated that the staff assessment has been sent to the AC.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Business Failure Clarification’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. He stated that he believed that the assessment stated this was already being done by ARIN. SL supported the motion stating that the proposal does not change anything from a staff interpretation perspective; and, the community does not seem to need it.

MH joined at this time (4:15 pm). The Chair updated him on the progression of the meeting and the current item at hand.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

Chair tasked CG to forward the justification for abandonment to EB for posting to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML).

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Combined M&A and Specified Transfers’, 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. He confirmed that the staff assessment had been received. SL stated that the text was straightforward, had been discussed on PPML, and needs to go to the ARIN PPM. He pointed out that it allows resource holders to transfer out as an 8.3 transfer for compliance if they have too much. SH stated that she did not support the motion. She considered the proposal superfluous and that ARIN did not need to waste time with it.

SL replied that if someone has space they are trying to transfer for a merger and has too much, policy requires it to be returned. It would discourage 8.2 transfers. This takes the space and transfers it to people who can use it, and keeps WHOIS up to date. He considered it valuable. BD pointed out that it is an option, not a requirement.

The President asked if the inverse were true; if they did an 8.3 transfer, and then an 8.2 merger. SL stated it was acceptable under the current policy to do so. If they initiate an 8.2, and then want to do an 8.3 transfer, they would have to undo what they did and do it in a way so as not to trigger a Section 12 Audit.

The President was confident that anyone planning this will come to ARIN in the right order, as it required forethought to do so, stating that there is a path for most people. SL stated the proposal eliminated the accidental end-case. The President stated for the record that he was not expressing any preference, but just needed clarity.

BS stated for the record that we would abstain from voting, as the organization he worked for is soon to be transferring, and he considered it inappropriate to vote at this time.

The motion carried 8 in favor (DA, CA, MA, MC, DF, CG, SL, JS), 3 against (MH, SH, RS), and 1 abstention (BS) via roll call.

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

SL stated that he had sent this to the AC’s list, and that it was ready for staff and legal assessment. The Chair stated he would send one last request for AC review tomorrow, and then would forward it for staff and legal assessment.

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

DA stated there had been no recent activity and would get together with CM quickly to work on it. The Chair requested they do so as soon as possible in order to get the proposal ready for the PPM. DA acknowledged.

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

RS stated this proposal was ready to move forward as a draft policy in order to be discussed at the PPM. The Chair pointed out that it needed staff and legal assessment first, but that there was still enough time that the AC could vote on it at their next meeting in August.

12. ARIN-Prop-149: Improved Transparency for Directed Transfers

The Chair stated there was no update at this time, as the shepherds were unavailable to provide an update.

13. ARIN-Prop-151: Limiting Needs Requirements for IPv4 Transfers

DA and DF stated that they needed to work on the text. The Chair requested posting it to the AC’s list and sending the final text to him, for the August AC meeting. They agreed to do so.

14. ARIN-Prop-152: RSA Modification Limits

MH stated he had not had an opportunity to discuss this with CM. The Chair requested posting it to the AC’s list and sending the final text to him, for the August AC meeting. MH agreed to do so.

15. ARIN-Prop-153: Correct Erroneous Syntax in NRPM 8.3

CA stated that she had requested a staff and legal assessment this morning, and the text is on the AC’s Wiki. The Chair stated he would get the text to the AC for review, and would then request the staff and legal review.

16. ARIN-prop-154: Shared Space for IPv4 Address Extension (with IETF considerations)

SH stated there is a section of the community who want this, and some that do not. She expressed that to some extent we are powerless, but that it was up to the AC to accept it on the docket for discussion.

The President pointed out that the suggestion is that ARIN reserve the space, and tell people the reservation in advance of having the IETF technically approve it. The ARIN Board asked us to work with the IETF and the IAB. He was not sure why the Board would consider this proposal appropriate because ARIN already has a policy under advisement. If approved, the Board could potentially direct ARIN to proceed with this policy and reserve the space in advance, but that that seemed contradictory to the guidance they have already expressed to the community. If this proposal were to be adopted, it is almost identical to the one already presented to the ARIN Board. He noted he could not predict the outcome, but they have been consistent in directing the community to work with the IETF.

The Chair stated the ARIN Board already has what they need. This proposal is for the AC’s docket, only for discussion as pointed out. The President read the message he had sent to the PPML, for clarity to the AC.

DF asked if the Board offered any guidance on the timetable, i.e., if we run out of addresses, do we set it aside or just run out? The President stated that when ARIN allocates the last /10, he would seek Board guidance at that time, as he indicated in email to PPML on this matter. BD stated that if that is the case, he was fine with abandoning this proposal.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Shared Space for IPv4 Address Extension (with IETF considerations)’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF supported motion stating it was not the correct way to deal with the matter. RS supported the sentiment, but stated the bases are already covered. The President reiterated that Board may decide not to implement 2011-5, even when ARIN is down to the last /10. RS stated that if the Board were to decide that, it would be fine. Waiting for the IETF to do something, and eating into a /10 would be being overtaken by events, and this proposal is trying to avoid that.

CA reminded everyone that she would be attending the upcoming IETF meeting next week. She pointed out that ARIN still has plenty of address space. She was in favor of the motion.

The President reiterated the status: Message sent to the AC and PPML on July 7, 2011, that the ARIN Board keep it under advisement, and that the President would bring matter again to the Board as ARIN approaches run-out, as we may have more insight into the progress at the IETF.

CG stated that he supported abandoning, and that after next week (post-IETF meeting) everyone would have better understanding on what will happen.

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

Chair tasked SH to forward the justification for abandonment to EB for posting to the PPML.

17. ARIN-prop-155: IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. CA stated that she and BS did not discuss this, but that she was against it. She stated it does an injustice to the ARIN members that have a business presence but are multi-national. They would no longer be able to get address space from ARIN.

The Chair stated he had thought the same and had asked LN for guidance. LN stated that the fact was that very few companies are multi-nationals that come to ARIN for address space. If they needed to go to Africa, we tell them to go to Africa. It is not clearly defined in any policy. BS stated he had spoken with the author recently, and they considered it important to get this proposal discussed.

RS stated that it codifies existing procedure. The concern is that if it doesn’t go through, the organizations will be incorporated and there is nothing in the policy to say they cannot do that. There is definitely a case to be made that makes it reasonable to require it. This is an ambiguity that needs to be resolved, which is more important than the actual outcome.

CA stated that if everyone feels strongly about it, it has to be on the agenda for the PPM; or else it will be overtaken by events. The Chair stated that the AC still has until August to get this proposal ready for the PPM. He pointed out that ARIN provided an experience report. This is a report where ARIN notes where it needs guidance. He considered it important to get the proposal on the AC’s Docket, and to hear the community’s feedback. It would alleviate ARIN from making spot decisions on how the allocations will be used.

The President agreed with the Chair. He stated that clarity either way would be helpful in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), and preferably within the next few months. He noted that people are more likely to be upset if ARIN makes the determination absent clear policy to fall back on.

MC stated that this is precisely why we have the community available, and why the AC needs as much clarity and guidance from them as possible. DF stated that he was not going to support it but now he considered it should be on the docket. He stated he did not support the text as written to move it forward, as it needed significant revisions. The Chair stated that if the proposal were on the AC’s docket, it would have specific changes for the author to address.

CA reiterated that if it were not on the agenda for the PPM, it would be overtaken by events. The AC acknowledged this fact.

SL stated that he opposed the current text, but supported the motion because he agreed with DA that it should be on the AC’s docket; and, should be discussed at the ARIN PPM. He stated that he would be happy to work with RS on improving the text. The Chair thanked him for volunteering.

The motion carried with 11 in favor (DA, CA, MC, BD, DF CG, SH, SL, BS, RS, JS), and 1 against (MH) via roll call.

18. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. There was no other business.

19. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:54 p.m. EDT. BD moved to adjourn, seconded by CA. The motion carried with no objections.