Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 19 July 2012 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Scott Leibrand, Vice Chair (SL)
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Kevin Blumberg (KB)
• 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, Sr. Policy Analyst (EB)
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis, COO
• Leslie Nobile, Registration Services Director (LN)

Counsel:

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Regrets:

• Chris Morrow

Absent:

• Bill Darte

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for comments. BS had requested that item 11 be discussed first due to his time constraints. The Chair agreed, stating item 11 would be discussed after ‘Approval of the Minutes’.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 21 June 2012, as written.”

The motion carried with no objections.

Per BS’ request, the Chair stated Item 11 would be discussed at this time.

11. ARIN-prop-177: Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

Chair called for discussion. BS stated that PPML discussion had been light and there was nothing adverse. SL had no objections to the motion. KB voiced a concern that a /15 would not be enough, and suggested that members of the community with knowledge of critical infrastructure should be engaged in discussion over next 12 to 24 months to gain more information. RS stated he had experience and could also speak to the matter of critical infrastructure should any AC members want to discuss the topic.

The motion carried unanimously.

The Chair stated he would resume the agenda, in order, with item 4.

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

HS stated that she had revised the text and would send it to the AC’s list. She noted it was wordy, but a clever revision. CA reminded the AC that they needed to make a decision by their next meeting to accept this onto the AC’s docket in time for the ARIN meeting in October. HS noted that ARIN staff’s concern of allocations not being large enough had been addressed by the NRPM revision that was made in the spring.

The Chair stated that the final text needed to be finalized with staff and legal review. He tasked HS with sending the text to him in order to get the staff and legal review underway. HS agreed to do so.

5. ARIN-Prop-166: Clarify /29 Assignment Identification Requirement

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Clarify /29 Assignment Identification Requirement’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. CG stated that the current text was unworkable, and there was no support for it. It tied staff’s hands on audits or review of resources. It was stronger than the original text, but because staff stated it was operational in nature, it was rewritten.

MH joined at this time (4:15 pm EDT).

CG stated he had submitted the original text through the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion process, as it was a better avenue. He believed the text was not useful, nor technically sound. OD agreed.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

Bill Sandiford left at this time due to a scheduling conflict (4:21 pm EDT).

6. ARIN-Prop-167: Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multi-homers

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multi-Homers”, 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. CA ready to go, staff and legal good, and should be discussed at the ARIN meeting in October.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

7. ARIN-prop-173: Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Revisions to M&A Transfer Requirements’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. RS stated this text was similar to omnibus proposals that would never gain consensus. He encouraged the original author to break this proposal up into non-conflicting pieces, and see if any or all could achieve consensus. He believed throwing out two-thirds of Section 8 would unlikely achieve consensus.

DF stated that there were a number of pieces that merit discussion, and would take RS’ comments under advisement. He would like to see further work done on this subject.

SL stated that he was amenable to the motion because proposal 175 was a better vehicle for changes to Section 8.2. He believed that a wholesale rewrite is not the best avenue.

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

8. ARIN-prop-174: Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry

MH stated that there had been discussion on the AC’s list and it was clear there were already mechanisms in place and that were understood. He believed this proposal was not useful, or technically sound.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Policies Apply to All Resources in the Registry’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated this proposal did not add to a larger discussion. OD stated it was not the right thing to do; however, if a vehicle to change 8.2 was needed, he believed this text was closer to that end than proposal 175, as it was ‘messy’.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

9. ARIN-prop-175: Delete Section 8.2

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Delete Section 8.2’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. CG stated the text was written to delete the section, and it makes no sense, but the rationale is to align with new protections in Section 8.3, and that had merit. A large part would align policy with staff’s current practice, but worth doing. He stated he would post it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and change the title. He believed it would be a good platform for an M&A transfer policy discussion at the next ARIN meeting.

The motion carried with 10 in favor (CA, KB, OD, DF, CG, SH, SL, HS, RS, JS) and 2 against (DA, MH) via roll call.

10. ARIN-prop-176: Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers

KB stated that further work was needed on Section 8.3, and it would need changes based on the clarity and understanding review from staff. The author indicated a number that was so close to ’no needs based’, that there was a ‘knee jerk’ to it. He was unhappy with the length of the term. The community x factor is length, but the y factor is related to how one actually figures out their needs for the time period. As the length of time grows as the number of months increase, it would be based more on wild assumptions on networks 5 years from now. If it were curtailed, brought more into reality, 5 years based on 1-year of needs assessment, there would be a chance of that being more beneficial.

It is premature because inter-RIR transfers have not yet occurred, and there have not been many in-region transfers. This will allow us to keep working on it as transfers begin to happen more readily.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Increase Needs-Based Justification to 60 months on 8.3 Specified Transfers’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that changes would become clearer as inter-RIR transfers open up. It would become clearer by the ARIN XXX meeting in October, and worth having on docket to discuss at that time.

RS stated that he was amenable to a discussion that was based on experience, and it was not time for that discussion yet. He believed that moving slowly in this instance would be a virtue. He stated that he believed some practices should not be codified and that sending marginally defensible projections to ARIN was one of those practices. He considered that a more realistic number was needed.

OD stated that accepting this onto the docket would send a bad message: if you don’t like the compromise, keep proposing more ridiculously far-out options into oblivion. He believed the proposal should be abandoned, and if there was data in the future with a more reasonable time frame, it could be discussed at that time. Doing this now with all the “maybe’s” was not worth it.

CG believed the horizon was ridiculous with no reasonable estimates. There was no 5-year window in free pool, and 5 years is too obviously outside the realm of reality for projection growth. Major changes have been made that have not been implemented, including timeframe. There was no way the originator could know there was a problem because no one has used it yet. We have not experienced enough to see a problem. There is an obvious small group who would like to change policy in their own interest, that has nothing to do with the operation of the Internet, and this should be taken into consideration. SH agreed with CG.

MH stated that he was in support of the motion and the majority of issues raised were red herrings. Companies often make five-year revenue plans and seeking such a change to policy is reasonable.

RS and CG asked MH for the basis of his opinion and MH deferred the question.

DF supported discussion, and was amenable to waiting on discussing the matter. He stated he would encourage the AC to vote against this motion, and send a message to the community that it would be more appropriate to take the matter up in the next policy cycle, after some policies are implemented and transfers have occurred.

MH stated that the vast majority of his previous comments were based upon 26 years of network operations, and he thanked John Curran for refunding his $100.00, and removing his name from the STLS registry.

KB queried how could the AC discuss this matter with no information? 5 years is unworkable, but we need to discuss Section 8.3 with regard to not penalizing legitimate transfers. If the proposal were on the AC’s docket, we would not have to wait for someone to submit something else.

RS asked what was wrong with an earlier discussion where we came up with 24 months? KB did not disagree, but stated that people were saying it was not good enough. RS believed it best to gather data before rehashing the argument with out additional data.

KB asked when does the discussion begin? It ended shortly a while ago, and started 18 months ago at this point. If we accept it onto the docket, we can be looking at 12 to 18 months before anything is done anyway. When do we start the process? It will take a while, and we will continue to watch and work - but we need to start somewhere.

HS suggested posting it to the PPML to foster discussion. SH believed the proposal to be ludicrous and that it would be overtaken by events – 5 years is preposterous. She stated she would vote against the motion.

DF stated that he was sympathetic to KB’s frustration and agreed that it should be discussed. He noted this had been a hot topic for sometime and believed it would do the AC good to step back, wait one policy cycle and bring it up at the ARIN meeting in the beginning of the 2nd quarter of 2013. He noted that it would take 12 to 18 months to get through the cycle anyway.

SL noted that if the proposal were on the AC docket, needs assessment for 8.3 would be discussed in October on the ARIN meeting agenda, or it could be a lunch table topic during said meeting. He believed something should be on the AC docket for the ARIN meeting in October on this matter – otherwise it would not be discussed with the full community. Given the amount of time it takes, and the value placed on community in-person input, he believed the AC would not want to miss the opportunity to discuss the matter in October. He noted the AC could modify the text between now and the ARIN meeting.

OD stated he supported abandoning the proposal. He believed an October discussion was too soon as there was no data. He noted folks wanted 36 months before, and we compromised on 24 months. It was the same issue, and community consensus was achieved. Now we would be supporting a term length even longer. He believed it would set a bad precedent.

MH stated that there were facts existing now that were not in existence when the 24 month period was agreed upon: A /8 had been returned to the IANA; and, ARIN has recently indicated a shorter time-frame until exhaustion.

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

CG left at this time due to a schedule conflict (4:59 pm EDT).

11. ARIN-prop-177: Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size

Previously discussed.

12. ARIN-prop-178: Regional Use of Resources

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. CA stated that she was uncertain what the point of the proposal was, and that it was a very long proposal that did not accomplish much.

RS stated that there were 2 considerations he wanted the AC to note with regard to avoiding the temptation to make as policy: 1) political points; and, 2) overstepping in terms of instructions to staff and minutia of implementation of the policy. He believed this proposal had both of these elements. He cautioned the need to be careful to look for these issues in making policy as time moves forward.

MH stated that like-proposals had been discussed during numerous policy cycles and comments have always been in the majority not in favor.

DF was amenable to the proposal being abandoned; he found the discussion on the list valuable. He disagreed that the topic had been beaten to death. The issue was IPv6. There was no clear direction for it, and this has been left to be ambiguous for too long. People do not know where to obtain resources. There have been failed editorial changes on this subject. There is something to be done here – time in the workshop of our next face to face meeting should be set aside for ideas on moving something forward that does deal with the issue. He accepted that this proposal might not be appropriate, but it was an attempt.

MH agreed with DF, although he believed it was putting the cart is before the horse. However he stated he was happy to discuss it and contribute effort to what DF had stated. He supported discussion IPv6 next steps.

Chair asked staff if there was an issue with IPv4 regarding from where companies got their resources? Is it a problem that needed to be solved? LN replied that it became noticeable. It has never been clear who can come to any RIR to get their resources. ARIN has a ‘headquarter in the region’ rule, and most RIRs do this with more or less leniency. The Chair agreed to add the topic to the AC’s next workshop agenda for discussion. He stated that DF did a great job at trying to solve some problems, but it introduces more problems in other areas.

MH agreed there was merit to this, but was concerned with trying to put something together for next meeting on a topic that is so complicated. Not everyone has the same facts. Hosting companies versus content providers versus network operators, for instance. Discussion would be helpful at the workshop, however he noted that policies such as these are complicated and needed to have all the facts.

KB did not support the motion. With regard to RS’ comment on not making policy with political points, he asked if this was not better suited as a global policy proposal in terms of how space is given out, rather than mandating a global effect through our own policy? He wondered if other RIRs have brought this up as an issue. The Chair noted this was a good point and cautioned the AC to be careful about putting out a policy that could have global effects.

DF stated he recognized the issues and stated that there is an IPv6 ramp up – guidance to those folks is needed with regard to where they can use the resources from ARIN. This is not something hidden or secret. He stated he was fine with waiting until the next AC workshop, but he did not want to do it after run-out because by then it would be too late to help with IPv6 deployments.

HS spoke to the suggestion of a global policy. She explained that that has to do with the IANA and RIR issues. There is no process for a coordinated policy for things that do not have to do with the delegation of resources between IANA and the RIRs. There is nothing to keep the versions of text the same, and it gets adopted only if all of the RIRs adopt it. She then stated that she did not have problem with this proposal, but the text needs work.

OD noted that AFRINIC passed a policy that was more strict than this one within their region. There is precedent for policy like this, and he did not see the need for a global policy beyond controlling where and how ARN resources can be used after distribution. It would not impact other RIRs in any way, other than reduce the extent of RIR-shopping.

The motion carried with 9 in favor (DA, CA, KB, DF, MH, SH, SL, RS, JS), 2 against (OD, HS) via roll call.

13. Improve Communications Group (IC) Report

IC members: KB, BD, OD, CG. KB stated he is looking to split up the work between the members and there would be more to come on the AC’s list in the next three weeks.

14. Any Other Business

The Chair stated that staff requires abandonment justifications and proposals that failed to be added to the docket. He asked that the AC send these to the their list if they require feedback before posting to the PPML.

The Chair reminded the AC to check the ARIN website for the deadlines for proposal text in order to have them ready for the next ARIN meeting.

DF stated that he would appreciate time in the AC workshop to discuss region of use and finding the right terms. He also conveyed greetings from, former AC member, Lea Roberts as he was currently in California and was meeting with her.

15. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:23 p.m. EDT. SH moved to adjourn, seconded by CA. The meeting adjourned with no objections.