Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 October 2008 [Archived]

Los Angeles, CA

Attendees:

• Leo Bicknell (LB), Chair
• Marla Azinger (MA), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Paul Andersen, (PA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Stacy Hughes, (SH)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Matt Pounsett (MP)
• Lea Roberts, (LR)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Suzanne Woolf (SW)

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst/Scribe
• Nate Davis, COO
• Leslie Nobile
• Ray Plzak (RP), President & CEO

ARIN Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan, ESQ
• Ben Edelman

Apologies:

• Alec Peterson, Robert Seastrom

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. PDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments and allowed discussion of any other business to occur at this time.

1. New Policy Development Process (PDP). RP explained that the new PDP was delayed so that the current policy cycle could be completed. He noted that, in light of the new PDP, the Board had been discussing the role of the AC. The Board concluded that the current AC practices in place could remain with the new PDP. JC noted that the new PDP will freeze text ten (10) days prior to physical meetings. RP also stated that minor revisions would be made to de-couple the timeline from rigid adherence to the Public Policy Meeting schedule.
2. Countries in the ARIN Region. RP stated that the ARIN website will be changed to display the ARIN geographical area in three sectors: Canada, Caribbean and North Atlantic Islands, and USA.
3. Travel and the 3-meeting cycle. RP stated that the AC should discuss whether the entire AC needed to be present for every Public Policy Meeting. The AC should submit its recommendation to the Board. The Barbados ARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting will require the AC Chair, or Vice-Chair, plus three additional AC members.
4. Consensus. The Chair suggested discussing consensus at this time, versus in the middle of a policy proposal discussion. BD recommended that there should be at least 75% support. JC explained that the AC has the freedom to act to revise, merge, etc., in order to make good, sound policy, and has always had this ability. He explained that the people who are against policies for good reasons are important to listen to, and to acknowledge. SW then explained the IETF’s “rough consensus.” When people disagree, it’s important that when they leave a meeting, they go away feeling that their side was heard and understood. If the AC moves a policy forward and it is unpopular, it will become clear on the list.

3. Approval of the Minutes

OD moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of September 18, 2008, as written.”

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

The motion carried unanimously.

4. Policy Proposal 2007-14: Resource Review Process

MP moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds that there is community consensus for Policy Proposal 2007-14: Resource Review Process and moves to it to last call as printed in the ARIN XXII Discussion Guide with an amended section 2c.”

This was seconded by SL. The Chair called for discussion. MA suggested that the author revise the proposal, and that the AC discuss it on the next teleconference call. PA stated he would second such a motion. BD also agreed with MA. The Chair too, agreed that the AC should work with the author.

The Chair asked if there were any objections to withdrawing the current motion. There were no objections. The motion was withdrawn.

MA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds that Policy Proposal 2007-14: Resource Review Process needs revising. The AC will work with the author.”

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

The motion carried with 12 in favor and 1 abstention (OD) via roll call.

5. Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

SL moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds that Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal needs revising. The AC will work with the author.”

This was seconded by MA. The Chair called for discussion. Discussion ensued regarding how many transfer proposals were desired. JC explained that the AC should not feel constrained by the sample motions, or the order of this agenda.

LR suggested that the proposals be brought together. The proposals are not ready to be adopted or abandoned, so they need to be worked on. CA expressed the need for one good proposal at the next meeting. SW felt that the consensus at this time was probably as much as the AC can expect. BD supported the motion.

OD suggested discussing the proposals together, also suggesting abandoning 2008-2, and moving 2008-6 to last call. MA supported the motion, noting that there were options other than transfers or no transfers.

The Chair asked if there was any objection to withdrawing the motion, and discussing both 2008-2 and 2008-6 together. There were no objections.

The motion was withdrawn.

The Chair stated that meeting attendees expressed that if ARIN does not move a transfer proposal forward, then neither RIPE nor APNIC will move forward with their proposals. The Chair expressed his opinion that 2008-2 is too complicated, but that 2008-6 is potentially dangerous. SW pointed out that other regions are reluctant to go first. LR noted that the issue is largest here in the ARIN region, as it affects the legacy issue. HS noted that this is a very important policy, it’s been discussed for 10 months, and that there have been proposals much less important discussed for longer periods of time.

Lengthy discussion ensued among the AC as to whether to abandon 2008-2 and move 2008-6 to last call; or possibly use RS’ proposal, as presented in the ARIN Members Meeting, as an amendment to 2008-6.

OD moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds that there is community consensus for Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses and moves to it to last call.”

CA seconded. The Chair called for discussion. BD stated that 2008-6 is not ready for last call, it needs work. CA suggested setting a due date for posting it to last call. Several AC members spoke in favor of revising 2008-6 and posting it to last call. MA suggested revising it and with a 2 month deadline, then in 2 months, move the revised text to the PPML for community input; or, if desired by the AC, move it to last call. RP noted that the AC has several options available after the last call ends.

LR moved to table the discussion. This was seconded by OD.

Several AC members spoke against this motion. The Chair asked if anyone supported the motion to table. No one supported the motion to table.

The motion to table failed with 1 in favor (OD) and 11 against via roll call.

BD suggested that whatever the AC chooses to do, the AC must explain to the community exactly what it is trying to accomplish.

BD left the meeting at 3:13 p.m.

HS stated she would like to see the proposal revised and posted to last call. Discussion ensued regarding disclosure of motivations and interests regarding this proposal. Counsel offered an attorney-client privileged discussion with the AC. During the privileged portion of the meeting, each AC member was asked to disclose whether they personally held legacy address space so that they would be aware of any potential organizational conflicts of interest in considering legacy address policy issues.

MA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds that Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses needs revising. The AC will work with the author.”

This was seconded by SH. The Chair called for discussion. SH noted that the AC is committed to working with the author to revise the text and posting it to last call soon.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

SH moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, abandons Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal.”

This was seconded by SL. The Chair called for discussion. SL noted that the AC is not abandoning the concept of transfers, just this specific proposal.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

6. Policy Proposal 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation

LR moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds that Policy Proposal 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation needs revising. The AC will work with the author.”

This was seconded by MA. The Chair called for discussion. LR noted that at ARIN XXI, in Denver, there was strong support for working on the proposal. While there are reasons for opposing the proposal, many were in support of the idea. MP and SL agreed. MA supported the motion, but spoke against the concept. The Chair stated he would prefer to abandon the proposal noting that revisions were made, but there was still no additional support.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

SL asked if the Board can set a new fee schedule. JC stated that if that was desired, then the community, and/or the AC, should make a recommendation.

7. Policy Proposal 2008-4: Minimum Allocation in the Caribbean Region

HS moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds that there is community consensus for Policy Proposal 2008-4: Minimum Allocation in the Caribbean Region and moves to it to last call.”

This was seconded by SH. The Chair called for discussion. PA suggested amending the text of the proposal so that it refers to the “Caribbean and North Atlantic Islands Sector” to match the description used on the ARIN web site, and remove the second bullet from 4.8.1 because it is redundant. SH seconded the amendment.

The amended motion carried unanimously via roll call.

8. Policy Proposal 2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment

MP moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds that there is community consensus for Policy Proposal 2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment and moves to it to last call with the /10 changed to a /8.”

This was seconded by SW. The Chair called for discussion. The Chair explained that if the AC does not support the change to the /8, then the proposal can still go to last call as a /10.

RP asked if the intent was to wait for the last /8, or reserve a /8 now for this purpose. LN explained how IPv4 requests take place with IANA. ARIN considers its reserved space as utilized. Nevertheless, ARIN has a stronger position with a policy in place.

SH stated that this was a substantive change, and that a /8 is too big. SL noted that there are things that could be done with the other three /10s in the future. CA suggested that the AC should work with the author.

MP felt that the proposal is clear, the space is allocated when the last /8 is received from the IANA. DA noted that there were several revisions that were brought up during the discussion, and there may have been confusion among the attendees. HS and SH agreed.

SW preferred to work with the author. The Chair pointed out that there were no dissenters, and suggested moving the proposal forward today or at the next AC call.

It was noted that timing could be an important issue regarding prefix filters. SL noted there was strong support for the proposal.

LB asked if anyone objected to withdrawing the motion. There were no objections. The motion was withdrawn.

MP moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds that there is community consensus for Policy Proposal 2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment and moves to it to last call.”

SL seconded the motion. The Chair called for discussion. SW stated the policy should take effect sooner rather than later. The Chair noted that such a position could be supported in last call.

The motion carried with 10 in favor, 1 against (SH), and 1 abstention (DA) via roll call.

9. Policy Proposal 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses

This proposal was discussed in Item 5, above.

10. Policy Proposal 2008-7: Whois Integrity Policy Proposal

PA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXII Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds that Policy Proposal 2008-7: Whois Integrity Policy Proposal needs revising. The AC will work with the author.”

This was seconded by OD. The Chair called for discussion. PA supported the proposal but stated that it was not ready for last call. MP noted that there is controversy about legacy space, and the need to somehow fix WHOIS on its own. There is agreement that better data in WHOIS is a noble goal. There was discussion about merging this with the three proposals that are still in initial review. MP suggested postponing those other proposals.

The Chair explained that the AC needs to work on this proposal. There was general agreement to work on all four proposals together. LR suggested keeping this proposal alive, and bringing the others into it. SH agreed. The Chair found support for the concepts, and noted that some of the items in the proposal texts currently are operational in nature, and therefore should go into the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP). MP agreed.

The motion carried with 11 in favor, and 1 abstention (HS) via roll call.

11. Policy Proposal: “Whois Authentication Alternatives”

SH moved:

“The AC postpones the proposals in items 11, 12, and 13 with the intent to merge them.”

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for discussion. MA spoke in support of the motion. The Chair asked PA to write the explanation of intent.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

12. Policy Proposal: “Whois POC Email Cleanup”

Discussed in Item 11, above.

13. Policy Proposal: “Annual WHOIS POC Validation”

Discussed in Item 11, above.

14. Any Other Business

The Chair noted that the ‘any other business’ issues of the New PDP, Countries in the ARIN Region, Travel, and Consensus were discussed under Item 3, Agenda Bashing, above. He called for any addition other business items at this time.

• There was discussion about the possibility of a one-day AC meeting in January. The AC members were asked to email their schedules to their list, and that this meeting should not overlap NANOG’s meeting.

• The Chair suggested discussing alternatives to 2008-6 after this meeting.

• PA moved:

“WHEREAS Ray Plzak has announced his resignation as President and CEO of ARIN after eight years of loyal service; _And WHEREAS Ray has provided continued insight, guidance, and knowledge to this Council during his tenure;_Now therefore, it is resolved that the ARIN Advisory Council offers its sincere and heartfelt gratitude for his long and diligent service and conveys its best wishes for success in his future endeavors, and expresses its great appreciation for his past and continued service to this Council, ARIN, and the Internet community.”

This was seconded by OD. The motion carried by acclamation.

15. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:59 p.m. PDT. SH moved to adjourn and this was seconded by CA. The motion carried unanimously.