Board of Trustees Meeting Minutes - 25 November 2002 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

Trustees:

• John Curran, Chairman
• Scott Bradner, Secretary
• David Conrad, Trustee
• Lee Howard, Treasurer
• Bill Manning, Trustee
• Ray Plzak, President

Trustee-Elect:

Bill Woodcock, Trustee-elect

ARIN Staff:

• Thérèse Colosi, Recording Secretary
• Richard Jimmerson, Director of Operations

ARIN Counsel:

Dennis Molloy, ARIN Counsel

Chairman of the Board, John Curran, called the meeting to order at 1:06 p.m. EST. The presence of a quorum was noted. David Conrad joined the call at 1:20 p.m.

1. Agenda Bashing
2. 2002-1: Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA
3. 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations
4. 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multi-Homed Networks
5. 2002-4: Bulk copies of ARIN’s WHOIS
6. 2002-5: Amnesty Requests
7. 2002-6: Aggregation Requests
8. 2002-7: Micro-assignments for multi-homed organizations
9. 2002-8: Privatizing POC Information
10. 2002-9: To allow micro-assignments for end-user organizations
11. Any Other Business
12. Adjournment

1. Agenda Bashing

Scott Bradner requested a discussion of process be added under Any Other Business.

2. 2002-1: Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA

A. Proposed Policy:

ARIN will actively identify lame DNS name server(s) for in-addr.arpa delegations associated with address blocks allocated, assigned or administered by ARIN. Upon identification of a lame delegation, ARIN shall attempt to contact the POC for that resource. The process of contact shall follow at least the following sequence until the lame delegation is repaired:

1. Email the contact to POC associated with the in-addr.arpa delegation from the ARIN database.
2. Email the contact to POC associated with the ASN(s) originating the route in the global routing table.
3. Telephone any POC associated with the ASN or ARIN records.
4. Send postal mail any POC associated with the ASN or ARIN records. Request response within 30 days.

After completing the contact procedures listed above, and the lame delegation persists, and waiting for a minimum of 30 days following the postal mail being sent, ARIN shall update the resource record with text indicating:

1. That the delegation has been determined to be lame
2. The evaluation date of the lame delegation
3. That contact has been attempted unsuccessfully
4. The date record was updated

The record shall be further updated by removing the name server delegation(s).

B. Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process Actions:

This policy proposal has been discussed on the email lists; consensus was reached at the ARIN X Public Policy meeting; the Advisory Council recommended adoption of the policy; and the policy underwent a last call on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List. There were no substantive comments made during the last call period. After the last call, the ARIN Advisory Council, in it’s teleconference meeting on November 22, 2002, recommends that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt Policy Proposal 2002-1.

The AC passed a friendly amendment to delete the words “contact to” in numbers 1 and 2 of the contact process as published in the final call.

Scott Bradner moved that:

“The ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the recommendation of the Advisory Council, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, adopt Policy Proposal 2002-1, Lame Delegations in IN-ADDR.ARPA as amended by the ARIN Advisory Council.”

Lee Howard seconded the motion. The Chair called for a vote and the motion passed unanimously.

3. 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations

The proposed policy is included for reference in Appendix A.

Scott Bradner moved that:

”The ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, returns Policy Proposal 2002-2, Experimental Internet Resource Allocations, to the public policy mailing list for further discussion and consideration.”

Lee Howard seconded the motion. Ray Plzak indicated that AC appointed 2 people to work with Randy Bush and Geoff Houston to see if the proposal could be revised and sent to the list for discussion. There was a short discussion after which, the Chair called for a vote and motioned passed unanimously.

4. 2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multi-Homed Networks

This proposal is provided to the Board as an informational item and is included for reference in Appendix A.

5. 2002-4: Bulk copies of ARIN’s WHOIS

A. Proposed Policy:

ARIN will provide a bulk copy of WHOIS output, including point of contact information, on the ARIN site for download by any organization that wishes to obtain the data providing they agree to ARIN’s acceptable use policy. This point of contact information will not include data marked as private.

It is also proposed the existing ARIN Bulk WHOIS Acceptable Use Policy…

“The ARIN WHOIS data is for Internet operational or technical research purposes pertaining to Internet operations only. It may not be used for advertising, direct marketing, marketing research, or similar purposes. Use of the ARIN WHOIS data for these activities is explicitly forbidden. ARIN requests to be notified of any such activities or suspicions thereof.”

…be applied in the implementation of any policy that results from this policy proposal with the addition of the following text:

“Redistributing bulk ARIN WHOIS data is explicitly forbidden. It is permissible to publish the data an individual query or small number of queries at a time, as long as reasonable precautions are taken to prevent automated querying by database harvesters.”

B. Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process Actions:

This policy proposal has been discussed on the email lists; consensus was reached at the ARIN X Public Policy meeting; the Advisory Council recommended adoption of the policy; and the policy underwent a last call on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List. There were no substantive comments made during the last call period. After the last call, the ARIN Advisory Council, in it’s teleconference meeting on November 22, 2002, recommends that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt Policy Proposal 2002-4.

Scott Bradner moved that:

“The ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, adopt Policy 2002-4, Bulk Copies of ARIN’s WHOIS.”

Bill Manning seconded the motion. The Chair called for a vote and the motion passed unanimously.

6. 2002-5: Amnesty Requests

The proposed policy is included for reference in Appendix A.

Scott Bradner moved that:

“The ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, returns Policy Proposal 2002-5, Amnesty Requests, to the public policy mailing list for further discussion and consideration.”

David Conrad seconded the motion. After a brief discussion, the Chair called for a vote and the motion passed unanimously.

7. 2002-6: Aggregation Requests

The proposed policy is included for reference in Appendix A.

Scott Bradner moved that:

“The ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, returns Policy Proposal 2002-6, Aggregation Requests, to the public policy mailing list for further discussion and consideration.”

Lee Howard seconded the motion. There was a brief discussion after which the Chair called for a vote and the motion passed unanimously.

8. 2002-7: Micro-assignments for multi-homed organizations

This proposal is provided to the Board as an informational item and is included for reference in Appendix A.

9. 2002-8: Privatizing POC Information

The proposed policy is included for reference in Appendix A.

Scott Bradner moved that:

“The ARIN Board of Trustees, based on the recommendation of the Advisory Council and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, returns Policy Proposal 2002-8, Privatizing POC Information, to the public policy mailing list for further discussion and consideration.”

David Conrad seconded the motion. After a brief discussion, the Chair called for a vote and the motion passed unanimously.

10. 2002-9: To allow micro-assignments for end-user organizations

This proposal is provided to the Board as an informational item and is included for reference in Appendix A.

11. Any Other Business.

Discussion of Process. Discussion ensued and it was the sense of the board that in the future, any policy proposal(s) not formally recommended by the Advisory Council, for whatever reason, should be grouped into a single information item on the Board agenda. All policy proposals will be assembled as an addendum to the agenda, to be available to the Board as a reference.

12. Adjournment.

The Chair indicated a willingness to entertain a motion to adjourn at 1:54 p.m. EST. Scott Bradner moved to adjourn and this was seconded by David Conrad. The motion passed unanimously.

APPENDIX A

2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations

A. Proposed Policy:

There have been a number of experimental address allocations undertaken in the Internet over the past decade. These experimental address allocations have been made by the IANA in coordination with standards bodies, such as the IETF, on an ad hoc basis. There is currently no systematic means of receiving other Numbering Resources on a temporary basis as part of a recognized experiment in Internet technology deployment. The following policy is proposed:

The RIRs will allocate Numbering Resources to entities requiring temporary Numbering Resources for a fixed period of time under the terms of recognized experimental activity.

The following criteria for this policy are proposed:

1. Public Disclosure of Experimental Requests

The organization requesting the resources will have to detail what experimental work they are going to carry out. Such detail can usually be made either:

* by submitting a proposal that references a current IETF Experimental RFC (Detail Two), or
* by submitting an ’experiment proposal’ detailing what resources are required, and what activities will be carried out (Detail Three).

Such experimental proposals will, in the normal course of events be made public upon acceptance of the proposal by an RIR. Consideration will be given to non-disclosure constraints, but this is anticipated to be a prohibitive constraint upon the use of public Numbering Resources, even in an experimental context. The RIR will not allocate resources if the entire research experiment cannot be publicly disclosed as per Details Two and Three following.

2. Resource Coordination with Standards Development Bodies

The IETF from time to time describes experimental activities and associated requirements for resources that will be required by participants in the experiment. It is considered as being acceptable for the organization to reference a current Experimental RFC and indicate the organization’s participation in the experiment.

Organizations such as the IETF, who describe experimental activities as part of their standards development process, need to consider the associated Numbering Resource requirements with any proposed experiment, and under this proposal will need to liaise with the RIRs as part of the process of publishing a draft as an experimental RFC.

3. Resource Coordination with Independent Experiments

For experimental proposals not covered by Detail Two, the RIR will require the experiment’s aims and objectives to be published in a publicly accessible document.

The RIRs have a strong preference for the use of an Experimental RFC published through the IETF, but will accept other publication mechanisms where the experiment’s objectives and practices are publicly and openly available free of charges and free of any constraints of disclosure.

The RIRs would also normally require that the experiment’s outcomes be published in an openly and freely available document, again free of charges and free of any constraints of disclosure.

4. Resource Allocation Term and Renewal

The Numbering Resources are allocated on a lease/license basis for a period of one year. The allocation can be renewed on application to the issuing RIR providing information as per in Detail One. The identity and details of the applicant and the allocated Numbering Resources will be published under the conditions of the RIR’s normal publication policy (for example, listed as a temporary allocation in the RIR’s database).

5. Single Resource Allocation per Experiment

The RIR will make one-off allocations only, on an annual basis. Additional allocations outside the annual cycle will not be made unless justified by a subsequent complete application. It’s important for the requesting organization to ensure they have sufficient resources requested as part of their initial application for the proposed experimental use.

6. Resource Allocation Fees

Each RIR may charge an administration fee to cover each allocation made of these experimental resources. This fee simply covers registration and maintenance, rather than the full allocation process for standard RIR members. This administration fee should be as low as possible as these requests do not have to undergo the same evaluation process as those requested in the normal policy environment.

7. Resource Allocation Size

The Numbering Resources requested come from the global Internet Resource space, and are not from private or other non-routable Internet Resource space. The allocation size should be consistent with the existing RIR minimum allocation sizes, unless small allocations are intended to be explicitly part of the experiment. If an organization requires more resource than stipulated by the minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request, they should include in their research proposal why this is required.

8. Commercial Use Prohibited

If there is any evidence that the temporary resource is being used for commercial purposes, or is being used for any activities not documented in the original experiment description provided to the RIR, the issuing RIR reserves the right to immediately withdraw the resource and reassign it to the free pool.

9. Resource Request Appeal or Arbitration

The RIRs should be in a position to assess and comment on the objectives of the experiment with regard to the requested amount of Numbering Resources. The issuing RIR should be able to modify the requested allocation as appropriate, and in agreement with the proposer. In the event that the proposed modifications are not acceptable, the requesting organization may request an appeal or arbitration using the normal procedures of the RIR. In this case, the original standards body that endorsed the experimental action may be requested to provide additional information regarding the experiment and its objectives to assist in the resolution of the appeal.

B. Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process Actions:

This policy proposal has been discussed on the email lists; consensus was reached at the ARIN X Public Policy meeting; the Advisory Council recommended adoption of the policy; and the policy underwent a last call on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List. There were substantive comments made during the last call period. After the last call, the ARIN Advisory Council, in it’s teleconference meeting on November 22, 2002, advises the ARIN Board of Trustees that Policy Proposal 2002-2 be returned to the public policy mailing list for further discussion and consideration.

2002-3: Micro-Assignments for Multi-Homed Networks

A. Proposed Policy:

ARIN’s current minimum assignment size is a /20. The following is proposed to enable multihomed networks to obtain their IPv4 address space directly from ARIN:

Multihomed networks not meeting ARIN’s current allocation guidelines may receive a properly justified /21-/24 sized network provided they have no other ARIN assigned space, and return all non-portable address space within 3 months of receiving their allocation. No justification (other than being multihomed, having no other allocations, and returning all other non-portable space) is required for a /24.

B. Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process Actions:

This policy proposal has been discussed on the email lists and at the ARIN X Public Policy Meeting. Consensus for approving this policy proposal was not reached. The ARIN AC will be contacting the authors of this proposal to discuss possible modifications to enable further community discussion. After the last call, the ARIN Advisory Council, in it’s teleconference meeting on November 22, 2002, advises the ARIN Board of Trustees that no action is required on their part regarding this policy proposal, at this time. This was accepted by the Board as an informative item.

2002-5: Amnesty Requests

A. Proposed Policy:

If an organization, whether a member or non-member, ISP or end-user, relinquishes a block of portable address space to ARIN, they shall be allowed to receive a block /24 or shorter, returning exchanged space within 12 months, and they shall not be required to justify their use of that space. That is, anyone should be able to decrease their use of address space at any time without fear of the effects of a utilization audit. ARIN staff shall, at their discretion, determine whether the smaller replacement block shall be a subnet of the returned block, or a block allocated from some different range. In the case of an organization name change for address resource records, ARIN’s normal transfer policies will apply. If the exchanged address block was maintained in the ARIN database without maintenance fees, the replacement space shall be as well, but if the returned block had associated maintenance fees, then the replacement block shall also be subject to maintenance fees.

B. Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process Actions:

This policy proposal has been discussed on the email lists; consensus was reached at the ARIN X Public Policy meeting; the Advisory Council recommended adoption of the policy; and the policy underwent a last call on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List. There were substantive comments made during the last call period. The wording of this policy proposal will be modified according to the comments made during the final call period and the policy proposal will be released for a second final call period. After the last call, the ARIN Advisory Council, in it’s teleconference meeting on November 22, 2002, advises the ARIN Board of Trustees that Policy Proposal 2002-5 be returned to the public policy mailing list for further discussion and consideration.

2002-6: Aggregation Requests

A. Proposed Policy:

If an organization, whether a member or non-member, ISP or end-user, relinquishes a group of portable, non-aggregatable address blocks to ARIN, they shall be allowed to receive a block in exchange, /24 or shorter, but no more than the shortest block that could contain all of the returned blocks. Exchanged space shall be returned within 12 months. For example, if an organization relinquished three /24s, they should be allowed to take either a /24, a /23, or a /22 in exchange. If all of the previous address blocks were maintained in the ARIN database without maintenance fees, the replacement space shall be as well, but if any one of the returned blocks had associated maintenance fees, then the replacement block shall also be subject to maintenance fees.

B. Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process Actions:

This policy proposal has been discussed on the email lists; consensus was reached at the ARIN X Public Policy meeting; the Advisory Council recommended adoption of the policy; and the policy underwent a last call on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List. There were substantive comments made during the last call period. The wording of this policy proposal will be modified according to the comments made during the final call period and the policy proposal will be released for a second final call period. After the last call, the ARIN Advisory Council, in it’s teleconference meeting on November 22, 2002, advises the ARIN Board of Trustees that Policy Proposal 2002-6 be returned to the public policy mailing list for further discussion and consideration.

2002-7: Micro-assignments for multi-homed organizations

A. Proposed Policy:

ARIN should reduce the current minimum IP allocation requirement to /21-/24 if an organization is multi-homed and actively using AS number(s).

ARIN may periodically inquire and verify that the multi-homed organization is actively using AS number(s). ARIN may reclaim its IP’s from organizations that no longer are multi-homed and/or stop using AS number(s). The following new fee schedule for /21 - /24 should be implemented as follows (based on the current fee schedule with a smaller minimum):

$400.00 per year for /23 - /24

$1000.00 per year for /21 - /22

B. Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process Actions:

This policy proposal has been discussed on the email lists and at the ARIN X Public Policy Meeting. Consensus for approving this policy proposal was not reached. The ARIN AC will be contacting the authors of this proposal to discuss possible modifications to enable further community discussion. After the last call, the ARIN Advisory Council, in it’s teleconference meeting on November 22, 2002, advises the ARIN Board of Trustees that no action is required on their part regarding this policy proposal, at this time. This was accepted by the Board as an informative item.

2002-8: Privatizing POC Information

A. Proposed Policy:

ARIN’s new database allows an organization to designate several points of contact for their organization and resource records. Available types of POCs are Admin, Technical, Abuse, and NOC. If an organization designates several POCs for the management of their organization or resource records in the ARIN database, they are made available via ARIN WHOIS. In order for a point of contact to conduct resource administration for a given resource record in the ARIN database, that POC does have to be associated with the resource record in the ARIN database, and therefore is listed in ARIN WHOIS.

It is proposed organizations be able to designate certain points of contact as private from ARIN WHOIS, with the exception that, at the minimum, one point of contact must be viewable.

B. Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process Actions:

This policy proposal has been discussed on the email lists; consensus was reached at the ARIN X Public Policy meeting; the Advisory Council recommended adoption of the policy; and the policy underwent a last call on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List. There were substantive comments made during the last call period. The wording of this policy proposal will be modified according to the comments made during the final call period and the policy proposal will be released for a second final call period. After the last call, the ARIN Advisory Council, in it’s teleconference meeting on November 22, 2002, advises the ARIN Board of Trustees that Policy Proposal 2002-8 will be returned to the public policy mailing list for further discussion and consideration.

2002-9: To allow micro-assignments for end-user organizations

A. Proposed Policy:

Specific language to be adopted:

Keep all the current IPv4 End-user Assignments language except to change in third paragraph change /20 to /24:

The new paragraph will read:

The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN is a /24. If assignments smaller than /24 are needed, end-users should contact their upstream provider.

Arguments for the Proposal and General Discussion of the Issue:

I started a company in 1991 and was able to obtain a Class C license. Our company did well and grew to more than a hundred employees. I left the company last year and started a new company. My old company still has the class C that I registered. (/24) My new company is growing but does not support the use of a /20 address space. My ISP is charging me for every IP address I use. I never paid for IP address in the past and do not feel good about it now. We should have a policy in place that supports small businesses and does not promote ripping off the small business’s by the letting the large ISP’s charge for each IP used.

Proposed Timetable for Implementation:
To be voted October 30th for immediate implementation.

B. Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process Actions:

This policy proposal has been discussed on the email lists and at the ARIN X Public Policy Meeting. Consensus for approving this policy proposal was not reached. The ARIN AC will take no further action on this policy proposal. After the last call, the ARIN Advisory Council, in it’s teleconference meeting on November 22, 2002, advises the ARIN Board of Trustees that no action is required on their part regarding this policy proposal. This was accepted by the Board as an informative item.