Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 08 March 2012 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Scott Leibrand, Vice Chair (SL)
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Kevin Blumberg (KB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen Delong (OD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Chris Grundemann (CG)
• Marty Hannigan (MH)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Bill Sandiford (BS)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)

Minute Taker

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
• Einar Bohlin, (EB), Sr. Policy Analyst
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis, COO
• Leslie Nobile (LN), Director, Registration Services

ARIN Board:

• Paul Andersen

Counsel:

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Regrets:

• Cathy Aronson, Chris Morrow

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted. He noted that this meeting was being held earlier than the regularly scheduled meeting; and, noted that the next AC meeting would be face-to-face in Vancouver during the ARIN XXIX meeting next month. He urged the AC to finalize their travel plans.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments. RS stated he had an item to add under any other business. The Chair stated RS could raise the matter at that time.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 16 February 2012, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement

CG stated this draft policy was ready to go to ARIN XXIX for discussion by the community.

MH joined at this time (4:11 p.m. EST).

The Chair stated that the deadline for any edits for policies is 12 April.

5. ARIN-2012-1: Limiting Needs Requirements for IPv4 Transfers

DA stated that discussion continues on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), and that there may be some small changes to the text resulting from said discussions. He was confident any edits would be made by the April deadline.

6. ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement

HS stated that there was no update at this time.

7. ARIN-Prop-157: Section 8.3 Simplification

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “Section 8.3 Simplification”, 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 stated that the title needs to be updated on the ARIN website, but has been updated on the AC’s Wiki. The Chair asked staff to update the title. It was noted that the old title was reflected in the stated motion.

SL amended the motion to reflect the new title. The Chair called for any objections. There were no objections. OD stated that he supported the amendment but not the motion.

The new motion reads:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “ASN 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. CG stated he was not opposed to the motion, but wondered about the use case. SL explained that it was not uncommon for AS holders to make requests, for ease of peering, and it did not strike him as harmful. SL believed it worth discussing at the ARIN meeting in April. OD stated that he was not strongly opposed to discussion, but agreed with CG and felt it served brokers and marketing departments. He noted that given amount of trouble of IPv4 transfers, he did not see opening that to ASN resources where he believed it was an unnecessary evil. SH, HS and RS agreed with OD.

SL asked them if it they believed the proposal should be abandoned instead of being moved forward. OD SH, HS and RS stated that they did support abandonment.

DF stated he supported the motion to move forward, as people in community are interested in discussing the matter, and he too believed it worthy of discussion. BS agreed with DF. KB agreed it worthy of discussion. He believed there were legitimate cases, and wanted to hear from the community.

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

The Chair reminded SL of the deadline of 12 April to make any edits to the text. SL acknowledged.

8. ARIN-Prop-162: Redefining Request Window in 4.2.4.4

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “Redefining Request Window in 4.2.4.4”, 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 noted that the PPML threads were mainly AC members discussing with each other, with little community members’ involvement. He stated this has been discussed previously and believed predictable run out was needed. All the previous statements where it was noted as unpredictable, makes it look like we did not mean it. BD agreed.

OD disagreed. The problem is implementation, noting that the 3-month trigger put in place was premature. It made run out less predictable, and extended run out beyond the rationale. He believed rethinking moving the trigger was needed, and it was not too late to fix that.

DF suggested a friendly amendment, as this proposal had a new title in the AC’s Wiki, “Return to 12 month supply and reset trigger to /8 in free pool”. RS accepted the amendment.

The new motion reads:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “Return to 12-month Supply and Reset Trigger to /8 in Free Pool”, selects it as a Draft Policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.”

DF further stated that he disagreed with CG. He did agree that the text has been mainly between the AC with regard to discussion on the PPML. However, he noted that in the past two ARIN meetings there was significant discussion at microphones as to whether returning to a 12 month supply would be appropriate, and there was interest in wanting to discuss it. He was uncertain if he would support that – he believed CG’s criticism was valid, but the topic needed discussion, to see what the community wants.

KB agreed with taking the proposal to ARIN XXIX, noting that there had been much discussion in previous meetings. He noted that there had not been a meeting where the 24-month term was in effect, as it is now, and that the 3 to 12 month discussion is important with regard to the disparity.

SL supported the motion but not the proposal. Counsel suggested that if the proposal moves forward a list of the pros and cons put together by a team within the AC might be prudent. The Community may need the information put together in an organized way in order to clarify the points. Counsel also noted that the policy needs to cover new entrants, and others, with regard to policies that would maintain the ability of people to get IPv4 after run out.

The Chair tasked the shepherds as follows: one shepherd to take a pro stance and the other to take a con stance, and to build a list of each. He also tasked them to list what other policies are in place that protects new entrants and infrastructure. DF and RS agreed, as the shepherds.

The motion carried with 10 in favor (SF, DA, DB, OD, DF, MH, BS, HS, RS, JS), and 3 against (BD, CG, SH) via roll call.

9. ARIN-prop-165: Eliminate Needs-Based Justification on 8.3 Specified Transfers

KB stated that the general consensus is to abandon this proposal. The feedback from the community was fairly unanimous on the PPML against it. He has followed up with the author with regard to other avenues in which to take on the subject. He noted that most of the issues that the author has are procedural and not operational, which would make it a “make work” policy. KB stated he is happy to work with author to help him with crafting more specific policies with regard to the issues.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Eliminate Needs-Based Justification on 8.3 Specified Transfers’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair noted this proposal would not have made it to the ARIN meeting due to lack of time and review from staff and legal. DF stated that he supported the proposal, but wanted to discuss it in Vancouver in anticipation of a replacement policy.

DA opposed the motion, stating that the matter is not ‘going away’ anytime soon, and there will be more proposals submitted on the matter, even if this one is abandoned. He acknowledged that this proposal does not contain language that is ready for a full proposal, but he believed it should remain on the AC’s docket in order to frame further discussions. SL agreed with DA, stating he believed it was worthy of more discussion. He noted that AC docket topics do get discussed at ARIN meetings.

CG stated that there were many posts on the PPML, and that roughly 90% of them were opposed. This topic continues to come up, and the vast majority continues to oppose it quickly. There are a small amount of members who see money at stake and keep bringing the matter up. He supported the motion to abandon. He suggested that the justification for abandonment could include that it can be brought up during ARIN XXIX lunch table topics and open policy hour to discuss it again. RS, BD, and SH agreed with CG.

OD agreed with CG also, stating that when transfers were allowed it was ‘a can of worms’ and just because the subject comes back up, does not mean it is a good way to go. He did not believe the proposal was in the right context.

The Chair noted the good job that CA did, as one of the shepherds, of filling out the proposal template. He noted that PPML lurkers, normally quiet, spoke up on the PPML and they were strongly against this proposal.

KB queried that if there a proposal that needs to be fundamentally re-written from scratch, with nothing left over from the previous version, why would we not abandon said version, and recommend working with the author to re-write it. SL stated that the main issue is not that it would not get through the process, but that it should remain on the docket until a better proposal can be written. The old version can then be abandoned in favor of the new, noting this had been done that in the past. RS stated he was in favor of abandoning, as there were better avenues to take to serve the community’s needs.
Counsel left the call at this time (4:45 pm EST).

DA stated he struggled with this because there has been much vocal support against these discussions. He stated he was struck by the number of the people who spoke up who were not the common posters to the PPML. He pointed out that the select handful of people who are in favor of this, are members of the community. He believed that even though there are people who will fight the change, does not mean the ones who do want to change it do not have a voice. He noted that having it on the AC’s docket for the purpose of framing future discussions.

BD stated that we have had the conversation multiple times, in multiple ways. He noted that resoundingly, it was defeated by the community, and agreed with RS. He believed that having it remain on the AC’s docket pretends there is likely to be community support for the matter - that there is merit in it. He believed the AC should be responsive to the community, and they have been against it. He supported the motion to abandon.

BS agreed, stating that it is substantially flawed. He did believe it was a dangerous stance to take that the AC would consider not leaving it on the docket because it has failed before, as it may not fail the next time around. However, he was in favor of abandoning it.
The motion carried 10 in favor (BD, KB, OD, DF, CG, SH, BS, HS, RS, JS), and 3 against (SL, DA, MH) via roll call.

The Chair tasked KB and CA to craft the justification for abandonment.

10. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business and reminded the AC again to have finalized their ARIN XXIX travel plans ASAP.

11. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:56 p.m. EST. RS moved to adjourn, seconded by SH. The meeting adjourned with no objections.