Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 November 2007 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

• Marla Azinger (MA), Chair
• Ron da Silva, (RD), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Paul Andersen (PA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Leo Bicknell (LB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Alec Peterson (AP)
• Matt Pounsett (MP)
• Lea Roberts (LR)
• Alex Rubenstein (AR)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Stacy Taylor (ST)

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst
• Thérèse Colosi, Scribe
• Nate Davis (ND), COO
• Leslie Nobile (LN), Director Registration Services
• Ray Plzak (RP), President & CEO

ARIN Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan

Observers:

• Owen DeLong, 2008 elected AC member
• Scott Leibrand, 2008 elected AC member

Apologies:

• Suzanne Woolf

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed and acknowledged the observers. It was noted Counsel and the President were attempting to connect remotely.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

ST moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of October 18, 2007 as written.”

This was seconded by MP. The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously.

Counsel joined at this time (4:07 p.m. EST).

4. ARIN General Counsel Report

Counsel provided an Attorney/Client privileged report to the AC.

Ray Plzak joined the call at this time (4:12 p.m. EST).

5. Policy Proposal 2007-19

IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs. The following policy proposal is in Last Call.

DA moved:

“T__he ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XX Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt Policy Proposal 2007-19: IANA Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks to RIRs.”

This was seconded by BD. The Chair called for discussion. No discussion.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

6. Policy Proposal 2007-21

PIv6 for Legacy Holders with RSA and Efficient Use. The following policy proposal is in Last Call.

RD moved:

“T__he ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XX Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt Policy Proposal 2007-21 PIv6 for Legacy Holders with RSA and Efficient Use.”

This was seconded by PA. The Chair called for discussion. There was no discussion.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

7. Policy Proposal 2007-22

Expand Timeframe of Additional Requests. The following policy proposal is in Last Call.

MP moved:

“T__he ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XX Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt Policy Proposal 2007-22 Expand Timeframe of Additional Requests.”

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with one abstention (DA) via roll call.

8. Policy Proposal 2007-25

IPv6 Policy Housekeeping. The following policy proposal is in Last Call.

LR moved:

“T__he ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XX Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt Policy Proposal 2007-25 IPv6 Policy Housekeeping.”

This was seconded by BD. The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with one abstention (LB) via roll call.

9. Policy Proposal IPv6 Assignment Size Reduction

The following policy proposal is in Initial Review.

MP moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled “IPv6 Assignment Size Reduction”, does not accept it. The reason we do not accept it is because there has not been any support on the Public Policy Mailing List. The Advisory Council will advise the author of the Petition Process. The AC requests that the President advise the author of the availability of the petition process.”

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for discussion. LB noted this proposal did receive many negative comments. The Chair expressed her support for the proposal, feeling it was ARIN’s responsibility for conservation. She stated the risk of waste is undefined, but the risk of conservation is zero.

MP stated that ARIN’s responsibility is stewardship, first and foremost, which conservation can fall under, but conservation is not ARIN’s mandate. Further discussion ensued with the members expressing their opinions.

LR stated that unless the IETF changes their documents that specify a /64, ARIN should not publish contradictory documents. She stated that if MA can get the IETF to change their documents, then LR would be willing to look at policy proposals such as this one at ARIN. It was the sense of the AC was that this is a hard-fast reality.

MA stated that if the AC doesn’t work with this policy, then they should be working with the IETF on these changes. She stated that real-world deployment of IPv6 is already ignoring EUI-64 and RFCs because as they began to build the networks, they realized how much of a waste it was. She added that, in reality, routing problems that were thought to possibly exist with equipment and subnet size more specific than a /64 do not actually apply in many cases.

It was the sense of the AC that the majority of people think there are enough addresses in IPv6 to last forever.

MA stated that much more address space exists in IPv6, and only a minimal amount of conservation is being done with current policy. She did not feel that enough conservation was being done; and, that no one has the capability to predict what technology will exist 5 years from now, or how many IP addresses will be used for that technology. She felt to say that there exists more than people will ever need is not a reliable statement. It hurts no one to conserve.

CA warned that this has been a conflict since the beginning at IETF, and that changing documentation is not likely to happen.

It was the sense of the AC that unless IETF changes or updates their documents in a way that reflects the real-world applications, ARIN should not publish policy or guidelines that contradict existing IETF documentation.

The motion carried with one against (MA) via roll call.

10. Policy Proposal 200-Reduction-6.5.1.1.d

The following policy proposal is in Initial Review.

PA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled “Policy Proposal 200-Reduction-6.5.1.1.d”, postpones the decision on the proposal in order for the shepherds to work with the author.”
This was seconded by BD. The Chair called for discussion. MP stated that there was no discussion for or against this proposal on the PPML. He felt more time was needed to foster discussion. PA agreed and also suggested that a more consistent proposal name be considered.

MA suggested using the poll system to see how many people feel if this section of the current policy needs adjustment. CA stated this is one of the proposals in the globally coordinated policy process; and that it has been changed in other regions. LB requested that it would be useful to have how many people were turned down because of the 200 requirement.

BD stated he would RP an email to ask for this information. PA will write to the author regarding the motion.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

11. Policy Proposal Globally-Coordinated-RIR-pie-IPv4

The following policy proposal is in Initial Review.

PA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled “Globally-Coordinated-RIR-pie-IPv4”, postpones the decision on the proposal in order for the shepherds and ARIN staff to work with the author.”

This was seconded by MP. The Chair called for discussion. The Chair stated there was redundancy between this proposal and Policy Proposal 2007-23; and, that while they are different in the way items are approached in each proposal, the intent is the same. PA and MP stated they had noticed this as well, and suggested a possible merge with the existing policy. It was also suggested that the proposal be abandoned. PA countered, stating that he was hoping to give this proposal another cycle in order to work with the author and explain the benefit of combining this proposal with 2007-23. Then if need be, abandon it. CA stated the author needs to know of this intention. PA replied that the author was aware, and will be contacted again. PA will write to the author regarding the motion.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

12. Policy Proposal Cooperative Distribution of the End of the IPv4 Free Pool

The following policy proposal is in Initial Review.

LB moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled “Cooperative Distribution of the End of the IPv4 Free Pool”, accepts it as written as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number.”

This was seconded by BD. The Chair called for discussion. RP stated that ARIN is waiting for clarification from the author because this proposal needs joint coordination between the RIRs to work correctly; or, clarification if this proposal is even meant to be a global policy. He stated clarification is n needed before moving forward; and the Staff assessment did recommend postponement.

MA stated she was in favor of postponing due to possible routing issues. LB stated that this has been introduced in two other RIRs, and is receiving discussion favoring a global policy. He felt it important the community address and discuss it.

RP stated that discussion needs to take place with the other RIRs to determine the level of effort. He would like an assessment from other RIRs whether or not this may need to go to the ICANN Board. He stated that there is no rush and there is plenty of time before the next ARIN Public Policy Meeting.

DA stated he was against motion because there were too many open questions.

The motion carried with 5 against (MA, DA, CA, LR, ST) via roll call.

MP left at this time (4:55 pm EST).

13. Policy Proposal 2007-14

Resource Review Process. No update at this time.

14. Policy Proposal 2007-16

IPv4 Soft Landing. BD stated he has not recently spoken to David Conrad, but the last word was that David and Geoff Houston were going to gather feedback from ARIN XX, and they are still working on it. BD apologized for not having more current information for the AC at this time.

15. Policy Proposal 2007-17

Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation. CA stated that Owen DeLong is crafting a rewrite.

16. Policy Proposal 2007-23

End Policy for IANA IPv4 allocations to RIRs. No update at this time.

17. Policy Proposal 2007-24

IPv6 Assignment Guidelines. No update at this time.

18. Policy Proposal 2007-26

Deprecate Lame Server Policy. CA stated that Owen DeLong would like to discuss this at next Public Policy Meeting and this policy proposal will be on the PPML again.

19. AC Travel Lottery Update

The Chair reviewed the lottery guidelines and travel for 2008 with the AC.

20. AC Retreat Update

The Chair discussed the upcoming retreat to be held in January 2008. She requested the AC email any input and questions to her.

21. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. In response to LB’s previous request in Item 10, above, LN stated that from September 2006 through October 2007, 100 requests from ISPs for v6 space were accommodated, and only one was denied due to a lack of 200 customers. The AC thanked LN for the statistic.

22. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5: 03p.m. EST. PA moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by CA. The motion carried unanimously.