Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 21 March 2013 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

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

Minute Taker

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela, Assoc. General Counsel (MA)

• Einar Bohlin, Sr. Policy Analyst (EB)

• John Curran, President & CEO

• Nate Davis, COO (ND)

• Leslie Nobile, Director of Registration Services (LN)

ARIN General Counsel

• Steve Ryan, Esq.

Observers:

• Paul Andersen, Board Member

Regrets:

• Cathy Aronson, Milton Mueller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 21 February 2013, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-1: Section 8.4 Transfer Enhancement

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘ARIN-2013-1: Section 8.4 Inter- RIR transfers of ASNs’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that the original intent of the author was to allow ASNs to be transferred in addition to number resources; not to further restrict IPv4 resources, but to add ASNs to it. The text that staff had suggested captures the author’s intent. He explained it was a fairly small change and it was in-line with what the author wanted, and what the appropriate wording should be.

The Chair agreed that the staff’s review of the text was a good clarification. OD stated he had re-read the policy and had no objections to the revised text. SL stated that another aspect is the merit of the policy and whether it should be recommended for adoption. This text allows records to be updated such that if someone has an ASN in another region, it can be transferred to reflect where it will be used. He noted that this was identified during the last NANOG meeting and that this was making policy to allow for the increase of accuracy of the registry.

OD believed it was more likely to be used to circumvent policy, and then transfer ASNs to give them legitimacy later. DA stated he was not in favor for reasons previously discussed.

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

KB joined at this time (4:20 pm EDT).

6. ARIN-prop-184: 3GPP Network IP Resource Policy

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-prop-184: 3GPP Network IP Resource Policy’ as a Draft Policy.

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that he had a face-to-face meeting with the author and they worked on the problem statement. He believed this version clearly stated the problem. The policy is not well defined because the author did not care how the problem is fixed, as long as it gets fixed. He stated the AC could adopt it, and then work on the text. What is important at this time is that the AC has a clear problem statement, and the author’s work is done.

The Chair stated that the shepherds would work on the text. It was clarified that under the new PDP, this draft policy text would be needed soon, in order for it to be included in the Discussion Guide for ARIN 31.

SL suggested crafting a slide deck with the problem statement and alternative solutions in order to obtain the community’s input. He stated the AC could then work on it further, as the AC may not have text prior to ARIN 31.

KB pointed out that with the new PDP, in SL’s suggestion, the proposal would need to go to another ARIN meeting before anything could be advanced. Regardless of the merits, unless there is discussion at ARIN 31 in April, this text would not move forward.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call.

7. ARIN-prop-185: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-prop-185: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISP’ as a Draft Policy.

The Chair called for discussion. DF believed they had a good problem statement and that the solution is mostly correct with the exception of making the allocation a /40, but he noted that that was for the next steps. He noted this was discussed on the PPML, and could be discussed at ARIN 31.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call.

8. Improve Communications Group (IC) Report

CG stated that he had sent an email to the AC list with regard to which direction the IC had chosen to follow. He explained the starting point is to define the expectations and duties of AC members in general, and with regard to the Shepherd’s duties, because most duties revolve around communication with each other, staff, and authors. He noted that the IC would have three drafts to share with the AC in next few weeks regarding the requirements of the duties for primary and secondary Shepherds and, expectations and decorum for the AC at large. He planned to discuss these issues during the AC’s face-to-face meeting in Barbados. He stated that it would be appreciated if the AC could provide any feedback, positive or negative before their meeting.

BD also requested that if an AC member had concerns or issues, the IC would like to hear them as soon as possible.

SL stated that he was in favor of this direction. The Chair asked CG if he needed input now, or on the AC’s list. CG replied that: 1) he wanted to touch base with the AC during this meeting to see if it makes sense; and, 2) feedback via the AC list to him, BD and JS would be appreciated. He requested an agenda item for the AC’s workshop in Barbados for approximately 30 to 60 minutes. The Chair agreed stating he would add it to the agenda and allot 60 minutes to the subject.

DF stated that he liked the direction CG had recommended, and suggested thinking about the standards for participation in the PPML and Public Policy Meeting (PPM). He requested this to make sure that there is thought put into it, and if the standards needed to be changed, to identify that as well.

9. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

Revised RFC 2050

The President stated that he, Russ Housley, David Conrad and Geoff Huston drafted a revised RFC 2050 that has been submitted, and is under discussion on the IETF mailing list. He believed it to be an accurate update, and that AC members should feel free to review if they wish and submit any comments they may have.

ARIN Fee Schedule

The President stated that the bottom most category of the revised fee schedule, XX-small, is defined as IPv6 holdings of “/48 or smaller”. At ARIN 31, he will be speaking with the ARIN Board about correcting it, as it is an oversight and should probably be “/40 or smaller”. He did not know if there would be any decisions made, however they will discuss it to be asynchronous with policy change – but not tied together – as the fee schedule is independent of policy. The AC and the community can decide upon policy either way as they see fit.

The Chair thanked him for the information. DF stated that this issue will come up in discussion on the floor of ARIN 31, and suggested that the more the Board can say about it, the better off it will be for said discussions. The President agreed.

CaribNOG

KB asked what ARIN was looking for with regard to AC presence at CaribNOG. The President explained that it is ARIN’s practice to allow members of the AC and the Board who wish to attend operator forums adjacent to our meetings to do so. The Chair stated that there are AC members who will be attending.

10. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:48 p.m. EDT. CG moved to adjourn, seconded by JS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.