Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 21 June 2007 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

• Marla Azinger (MA), Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Leo Bicknell (LB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Alec Peterson (AP)
• Matt Pounsett (MP)
• Lea Roberts (LR)
• Alex Rubenstein (AR)
• Heather Schiller (HS)

ARIN Staff:

• Thérèse Colosi, Scribe
• Nate Davis (ND), Director of Operations
• Susan Hamlin (SH), Director of Member Services
• Richard Jimmerson (RJ), Director of External Relations
• Leslie Nobile (LN), Director of Registration Services

ARIN Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan

Apologies:

• Paul Andersen
• Ron da Silva
• Stacy Taylor
• Suzanne Woolf

Absent:

• Robert Seastrom

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. LB requested a discussion on a draft proposal he and HS were working on. The Chair added this to the agenda under Any Other Business.

3. Policy Proposal 2007-11: Refinement of ISP Initial Allocation Policy

This policy was ratified by the Board at their meeting on June 14, 2007.

4. Policy Proposal 2007-1: Reinstatement of PGP Authentication Method

ND stated that the ARIN Board felt that use of cryptographic authentication is an operational matter, thus did not adopt this as a policy proposal. The Board has directed ARIN staff to implement the use of PGP on all communications concerning the management of Internet number resources whenever feasible.

5. Policy Proposal 2007-2: Documentation of the Mail-From Authentication Method

The Chair asked if ND had any further comments regarding this proposal. ND stated the explanation for this proposal was the same as for 2007-1; and, that the ARIN Board did not adopt this as a policy proposal.

6. Policy Proposal 2007-3: Documentation of the X.509 Authentication Method

The Chair asked if ND had any further comments regarding this proposal. ND stated the explanation for this proposal was the same as for 2007-1; and, that the ARIN Board did not adopt this as a policy proposal.

7. Policy Proposal 2007-8: Transfer Policy Clarifications

This policy was ratified by the Board at their meeting on June 14, 2007.

8. Policy Proposal 2007-4: Changes to IPv6 Policy - Removal of “Interim” Consideration

This policy was ratified by the Board at their meeting on June 14, 2007.

9. Policy Proposal 2007-9: Modernization of ISP Immediate Need Policy

This policy was ratified by the Board at their meeting on June 14, 2007.

10. Policy Proposal 2007-7: Creation of Policy for Subsequent End-User IP Requests/Assignments.

This policy was ratified by the Board at their meeting on June 14, 2007.

11. Policy Proposal 2007-13: Policy Proposal Removal of ISP Immediate Need from End-User

The Chair stated that ST sent an email stating that there was nothing to report at this time.

12. Policy Proposal IPv4 Soft Landing

BD stated that he had requested that the feedback from the PPML be provided to him via Counsel and staff after they had a chance to review it. He further explained that the author is re-evaluating the proposal and modifying it to post in the future to the PPML.

Counsel provided an update stating that in order to assist the Board and the AC in long run, he has engaged an expert economist to research how one affects markets in time of scarcity.

Counsel explained that he would have significant input from the economist looking at this issue from different perspectives and that the information would be available to the AC in August. He stated that the scope of the research would include the following points:

1. What are the market forces that ARIN can assist with, that would help v6 to become more prevalent in the Internet economy?
2. Is there a meaningful way to look at legacy address space and pick places where the v6 green field can continue for awhile?
3. What are the implications for ARIN, the AC, and the Board?
4. What kind of policies would an economist tell you that you may want to adopt in a market of this type?

BD stated he would send his questions to RP and to Counsel on any issues he needed to have reviewed, or questions answered.

Counsel stated, that in his opinion and speaking only for himself, that the AC should also look at crafting a policy, if they so chose, on this subject.

13. Policy Proposal Reclamation of Number Resources

LB stated that he had spoken with the authors and provided the authors with updates. He said he was still interested in the AC’s feedback as a whole; and, that the authors are working on the revisions and would be posting them soon to the PPML.

The Chair asked for any other comments. There were no comments. The Chair stated the AC would review the updates and email LB.

14. AC Review Process

A. Phase 1: Review and Vote. The Chair stated she had sent her thoughts on the edits to the review process to the AC via email. She asked them to re-review these changes and vote on what had been proposed, so they could move forward.

DA asked for clarification: if an AC member shepherds a proposal through the initial review, must that same member shepherd the proposal as it goes through the review process? The Chair stated that the same member does not need to shepherd the proposal all the way through the process, but it is preferred. She explained that if the initial shepherd cannot continue after the initial period, another one would be assigned.

The Chair asked for a roll call vote to ascertain agreement on the edits. All agreed on the edits.

B. Phase 2: Discussion. The Chair stated there were a few issues she wanted the AC to discuss as follows:

1. Criteria. Criteria need to be created regarding what the AC shepherd will email to the AC in preparation for the proposal review. A minimum requirement for all AC members to work with needs to be created. Due to time constraints, the Chair suggested this be discussed on the AC’s mailing list and all agreed.
2. Flowchart. LB suggested changing how it currently reads. The Chair suggested editing the wording and possibly creating a second, less technical diagram that would be easier to understand. She suggested this be discussed on the AC’s mailing list and all agreed.
3. Email notification Timelines. Email notification timelines need to be defined for staff when the PPML notices are distributed. The Chair stated it would be easier for the authors if they were notified before the public notification is sent.

The Chair asked the AC if 24 hours would be enough time to get notification to the authors. MP stated in order to know whether or not 24 hours is enough time, there needs to be a minimum time set for staff. The Chair stated she would start an email string on this subject. LB suggested that staff provide the date at which they send the notification, and the AC make the notification to the authors as close to that period as possible.

The Chair suggested that possibly staff could also include a blurb in the notification regarding what was being worked on with the author. ND stated that ARIN staff would welcome any specifics to add to the text to clarify what the author would be working on.

LB also stated that the AC needs to address the language used when a proposal was not accepted. He suggested creating multiple explanatory statements on why the proposal was not accepted.
BD suggested that when a proposal is not accepted for whatever reason, the AC should formalize a statement at that time and agree upon it. The AC thought this was a good idea.
The Chair stated a short blurb will be crafted at the time when a proposal is not accepted.

LB and the Chair also suggested that a list of statements regarding non-acceptance could be crafted for the AC to choose from at the time; and, that staff can also attach to the public notice. The Chair stated she would craft the list of statements that the AC could review and formalize. All agreed.

The Chair stated that the AC would work on the notifications with staff and, she would begin an email string for discussion.

15. EGLOP Update

BD reported that he posted an email to the author indicating that when the author was ready, the author could discuss this matter with BD, or the AC, and craft a new proposal. The author thanked him, but has not yet sent any further information.

16. Routing Table Discussion for ARIN XX

CJ stated planning was going well, and she would be sending email update to the AC’s list. Several parties are interested in participating and discussing this issue. RP had stated that he would help set up the mailing list to form the panel.

17. IPv6 Panel for next NANOG

CJ stated that her idea was not so much a ‘panel’ as it was informing people on v4 rundown and transition. She stated the agenda needed work, and asked Counsel if he could provide some information. Counsel stated he could send an interim version of a legal paper he is working on. CJ thanked him.

18. Mailing List AUP

No update at this time

19. AC Website Supplements:

AC Mailing List Archive. No update at this time.

20. IETF Collaboration

The Chair provided a brief update to the AC stating that she was representing ARIN, and the AC, at IETF to facilitate the gap between RFC’s being written and RIR policy being written; and to identify distinctions and lines being crossed. The Chair stated that she is also now a member on the Routing and Addressing Directorate and participates on conference calls and documentation creation which have been primarily v6-focused. She stated the IETF was very receptive to her representation.

21. Any Other Business

LB stated that he and HS were asked by Lee Howard to edit Section 6 of the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). Lee had made corrections/clarifications to the section, and requested that the AC move it forward as a proposal. LB stated the edits would be made available shortly. He explained that the term “ISP” is used throughout the NRPM. In Section 6, regarding Global v6 Policy, “LIR” is used, and Lee suggested ISP be used. LB stated people seem to believe the term ‘ISP’ means something different; and, he suggested moving to the term ‘LIR’ for this reason. He asked the AC’s opinion.

MP agreed with using ‘LIR’ and stated he would be happy to help work with LB and HS.
DA agreed with LB as well. LR stated she had come up against confusion with this terminology as well, and felt that as long as it is clearly stated that ISP’s are a subset of LIR’s, people can get used to using the term. BD stated it should be defined in the Glossary of Terms and the AC would need to be thorough in using the term.

LB stated he and HS would be meeting with Lee Howard, and LB would provide an update at the AC’s next meeting.

LR asked if LB felt there would be more editing of the NRPM outside of Section 6. LB replied that if using ‘LIR’ is approved, then yes, changes would be made elsewhere in the NRPM and that that would be a separate proposal. HS stated that previously there had been discussion on the term “end user” versus “end site” being used as well.

LB stated that Section 6 clean up is the bulk of what Lee Howard had currently provided, and that LB’s proposal will only address Section 6, but may instigate spin-off proposals.

The Chair called for any other business matters. BD stated that he is working on a policy proposal regarding the v4 to v6 transition. He stated that all comments have been forwarded to the author. The author has updated the proposal language and the website page addressing it; and, the author will be posting it to the PPML shortly.

The Chair thanked him for his efforts.

BD commented that with regard to Policy Proposals 2007-1, 2007-2 and 2007-3, he did not feel it was a waste of time for those proposals to go through the process because they fostered good discussions on the PPML, and in the ARIN Public Policy Meeting. The Chair agreed, and stated she felt the AC did what needed to be done and that they did a good job.

22. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:59 p.m. EDT. BD moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by MP. The motion carried unanimously.