ARIN X Members Meeting - Eugene, Oregon - 1 November 2002 [Archived]

Announcements and Call to Order

Richard Jimmerson opened the meeting at 9:00 AM (PST), with thanks to the sponsors, and a preview of the day’s agenda. Richard announced that ARIN President Ray Plzak was representing ARIN at the ICANN meeting in Shanghai, China. The agenda was adopted without change and the meeting proceeded.

Online Voting Process

Speaker: Susan Hamlin
Presentation: PDF

Susan Hamlin outlined the online voting process and presented the names of the candidates running for the Board of Trustees and the Advisory Council.

ARIN AC Candidate Speeches and Biographies

Presentation: PDF

• Dana Argiro, Mark Kosters, Charles Smith were not present. A URL for reading biographical information and statements of support were presented for each candidate.
• Bill Darte, Andrew Dul, Dale Finkelson, Teri Francis, Tanya Hinman, Cleveland Mickles, Alec Peterson, Lea Roberts, John Sweeting, Stacy Taylor, and Suzanne Woolf introduced themselves and gave short speeches.
• Justin Newton - Withdrew from the election

A summary of each candidate’s biographical information was posted on the screen, along with the URL to more detailed information and statements of support. Richard Jimmerson encouraged all attendees to visit the URL of each candidate prior to casting their vote.

ARIN Board of Trustees Candidate Speeches and Biographies

Presentation: PDF

Richard Jimmerson presented the list of candidates for the ARIN Board of Trustees.

• John Brown - not present, URL for reading biographical information was presented
• David Conrad - present, introduced himself and offered a statement on his qualifications
• Stephen Stuart - not present, URL for reading biographical information was presented
• Bill Woodcock - present, introduced himself and offered a statement on his qualifications

A summary of each candidate’s biographical information was posted on the screen, along with the URL to more detailed information and statements of support. Richard Jimmerson encouraged all attendees to visit the URL of each candidate prior to casting their vote.

Department Reports

ARIN department directors presented status reports on their respective department’s accomplishments and goals.

• Administration - Mary K. Lee
  Presentation: PDF
• Business - Bob Stratton
  Presentation: PDF
• Engineering - Ginny Listman
• Member Services - Susan Hamlin
  Presentation: PDF
• Registration Services - Leslie Nobile
  Presentation: PDF

Richard Jimmerson thanked the Directors of ARIN for their hard work and dedication.

ARIN Advisory Council Report

Chairman and Speaker: Alec Peterson

The AC had nine policy proposals to address.

2002-1 - Recommended for passage and on to a Final Call on the mailing list.

2002-2 - Talked at great length about commercial use policies, and realized that policy wasn’t designed for commercial entities, but for research entities. The AC did not change policy as written, recommended for passage and on to a Final Call on the mailing list.

2002-3 - No consensus reached, recommended policy proposal not move forward in its current form. AC will provide feedback to the author and recommend that a new proposal be crafted.

2002-4 - Resulting from discussion during the public policy meeting, text regarding POC data marked as private will be included in proposal text before distribution to the mailing list for Final Call.

2002-5 - Resulting from discussion during the public policy meeting, some language modifications will be made (“receive” instead of “select” and the addition of a 12 month renumbering period) to the policy proposal before distribution to the mailing list for Final Call.

2002-6 - Resulting from discussion during the public policy meeting, some language modifications will be made (“receive instead of “select”) to the policy proposal before distribution to the mailing list for Final Call.

2002-7 - No consensus was reached, recommended policy not move forward in its current form. AC will provide feedback to the author, and recommend that a new proposal be crafted.

2002-8 - Recommended for passage and on to a Final Call on the mailing list.

2002-9 - No support was voiced. It was recommended that the policy proposal not be moved forward.

Richard Jimmerson asked for audience recognition of the volunteer work performed by the Advisory Council.

ARIN Board Report

Chairman and Speaker: John Curran

• Majority of time spent on issues with ICANN
• Micro-allocation for exchange point policy ratification
• Minor changes to bylaws - conflict of interest, elections
• Cleaning up things, restructured finance committee
• Also does outreach, other RIR boards, work out common policies and procedures
• In general, the board has done well, no major crisis
• Recognition of excellent work of Ray Plzak, ARIN President
• Processes in place to make ARIN easy to manage
• ICANN will be top priority for the next few months, will continue outreach to ICANN to reach a productive close

General Comments:

• Question from floor: Any info on what’s going on at ICANN meeting? John replied that there were no further developments related to the RIRs.
• Question: Did LACNIC sign agreement with ICANN? It was explained that while they were approved as an RIR, they did not sign a separate contract with ICANN

Financial Report

Treasurer and Speaker: Lee Howard
Presentation: PDF

Lee Howard gave a report on the Finance Committee.

• Most ICANN funds currently escrowed, pending contract approval, although some have been sent as a sign of good will
• ICANN Contribution - 10% of ICANN budget is paid by RIRs
• Finance Committee
• Investment plan
• Audit
• IPv6 Fee Structure

IPv6 Fee Structure

Moderator: John Curran

John Curran presented three possible scenarios for an IPv6 fee structure.

General Comments

• Why worry about cash flow when you will be doing less work. Volume of address usage will exceed most expectations.
• What is the role of a RIR in an all IPv6 world? We might want to think about developing a fee structure that phases ARIN out as IPv6 is accepted because its main goal is “stewardship”.
• It was pointed out in response to a question that APNIC currently bases categorization of the size of an organization by the amount of space they have in IPv4 or IPv6 allocations, whichever is larger. RIPE NCC, like ARIN, does not charge its IPv4 members additional fees for IPv6 addresses.
• It was suggested that v6 allocation should be cheaper as it is less expensive to allocate. John Curran replied that the cost of a given allocation to ARIN included RSD staff man hours, engineering team, cost of members meetings, etc. Future budgets will be smaller, but my concern is for January 1st, we don’t currently charge for IPv6, and we need to recover costs.
• There was a proposal from the floor that ARIN, in an effort to encourage adoption, should not charge at all for IPv6.
• A graduated fee schedule based on the amount of IPv6 currently deployed was suggested.
• It was recommended that because of its evolving nature, IPv6 fees should be reviewed every year.
• I understand universities have budget constraints, but we have to ask whether those people receive the same amount of services as network providers. If they do, they should be in the same category as other providers. If we feel educational institutions should be given a break, then let’s give them a 50% discount or something, but giving them a free ride all the time is not a good idea.
• In scenario 1 it was proposed that the fee be cut in half for the first v6 allocation and that the anniversary fee would mirror v4 fees and remain unchanged.

General Consensus (IPv6 Fee Structure):

• How many people here would be offended, morally wounded, if ARIN passed a scenario 1 IPv6 fee structure - with or without the v6 only line - but take scenarios 2 and 3 off the table - how many people think we’d be making a mistake? No hands were raised.
• Scenario 1 (as outlined in presentation) with or without v6 only scale?
  Yes? 33 No? 1
• Acceptance of IPv6-only scale as part of scenario 1?
  Yes? 21 No? 4

Richard Jimmerson thanked the Board for their continued dedication and time devoted to ARIN business.

Open Microphone

• Thank you to the coordinators for setting this up with the NANOG meeting, since otherwise I would not have been able to attend.
• Thanks to Richard Jimmerson for all his work at this meeting
• I’d like the Board to consider additional levels on the fee schedule.
• Request to bring more small and medium ISPs into meetings to get their feedback. It was pointed out that the PPML list is the forum used for most discussions of policy and is open to anyone.
• There was the expression of the need for a better way to judge consensus on the mailing list.
• The policies that we’ve been discussing - the spirit is to clean up existing swamp space and the database as a whole. One useful thing for my company was the waiver of transfer fees for that cleanup process. However, that fee waiver is about to expire, and there’s still a lot more space that needs to be cleaned up. Can there be some discussion of an extension of that waiver fee? After some discussion, Richard Jimmerson asked “Is there anyone in this room that would object to ARIN suspending transfer fees for another year?” No one objected, and John Curran replied that he believed with that feedback the Board would know how to handle this decision.
• Frustration with the current method of dealing with proposals that are similar was voiced. Scott Bradner said that this was something he had been specifically asked to look into. John Curran pointed out that any change in the policy process would be posted for discussion.

Closing Announcements and Meeting Adjournment

Richard Jimmerson made a closing announcement, thanked the sponsors again, and encouraged feedback on the evaluation form on the website or via e-mail to Member Services. The meeting was adjourned at 12:06 PM (PST).

Sponsors