Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 December 2008 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

• Leo Bicknell (LB), Chair
• Marla Azinger (MA), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Paul Andersen, (PA)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Alec Peterson (AP)
• Matt Pounsett (MP)

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst
• Thérèse Colosi, Scribe
• Nate Davis, COO
• Susan Hamlin, Director, Member Services
• Richard Jimmerson, CIO
• General Dale Meyerrose, Interim CEO
• Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services

ARIN Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan, ESQ

ARIN Board of Trustees:

• John Curran (JC)

Observers:

• Marc Crandall (MC)
• David Farmer (DF)
• John Sweeting (JS)

Apologies:

• Cathy Aronson, Heather Schiller, Rob Seastrom

Absent:

• Suzanne Woolf

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. OD requested adding a thank you to the departing AC members. The Counsel requested discussing the RIPE transfer policy. ND requested adding a discussion of the ARIN Fellowship Program. The Chair added these items to Any Other Business.

3. Approval of the Minutes

OD moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of November 20, 2008, as written.”

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

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Policy Proposal Process (PDP)

The ARIN Board adopted the new PDP at their meeting on December 3, 2008 with staff implementation set for January 2009. The Chair stated two issues to the AC: 1) to familiarize themselves with new process; and, 2) to make decisions on transitioning current proposals from the old process. He stated that 2008-5 is in the end of the process, and can be handled under old process. He explained that 2007-14, 2008-3, 2008-6, and 2008-7 will need to go into the new PDP, plus the yet un-numbered Recovery Fund and Depleted v4 Reserves policy proposals. He stated that it was important to communicate with stakeholders and authors regarding this new process. The Chair then called for any questions.

BD joined at this time (4:13 pm).

SL asked if there would be any change to the shepherds. The Chair stated he didn’t think so. JC stated that once the AC has a proposal that is authored from the AC, the AC may still want shepherds to present the proposal. OD agreed.

Marla stated she felt what was in place will function fine, that new changes may not need to happen, and the AC should look at what we have.

After discussion it was the sense of the AC to discuss this topic in January at their Workshop.

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

The ARIN Board ratified this proposal at their meeting on December 3, 2008. EB stated that this was implemented and rolled out on December 17, 2008.

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

Last Call for this proposal ended on December 15, 2008. MP stated he didn’t see any comments on the PPML OD agreed.

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 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 2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment.”

This was seconded by SL. The Chair called for discussion. LR joined at this time (4:22 p.m.). There were no comments.

The motion carried with 8 in favor, and 2 abstentions (DA, PA).

7. Policy Proposal 2007-14: Resource Review Process

It was noted that last call for this proposal ends on January 14, 2009. There was no further discussion.

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

LR stated there was currently nothing to report but suggestions were welcome. SL volunteered to look at the text and see what he thought needed to be changed. He stated he would send this to the AC’s list.

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

OD stated he had not seen anything new on the PPML. BD, as author, stated the abbreviated text caused confusion about what was meant regarding the exact amounts and what happened to some of the text with regard to minimum allocation sizes. He stated, in his opinion, the text is fine as is and provides an emergency outlet for the Board to exercise at their will, which was the intention. MP asked if this was considered a minor revision, or is the policy cycle needed? BD stated he felt it could be put out as-is for last call. MP stated he felt the AC ought to give the Board authority to edit the text to the transfer policy. He explained that nothing suggests that the proposal cannot continue to be refined, or even to become obsolete before it is implemented.

BD stated he could post the proposal to PPML stating that this is what we have as a stake in the ground for guidance and capability to the Board, and changes or other proposals are certainly welcome.

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, 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, for an extended period of thirty (30) days.”

This was seconded by BD. The Chair called for comments. MA asked BD if, given all emails on subject, this proposal was really ready for last call. BD stated he felt it was. SL asked if anyone else had objections. DA stated he did not object but would be prone to put it off since there is another potential proposal, the Recovery Fund that was delayed until January. He felt it may be better to delay the transfer policy until the AC could discuss the recovery fund policy and how they relate to each other. PA agreed.

MA asked DA if he had done a comparison of the transfer and recovery fund policies. DA replied he had not. MA stated she was leaning toward not supporting the policy because there are other proposals being considered. She felt the community is tired of the topic at this point in time, and although having a is better than not having one, she did not feel that one month to compare the two policies that DA spoke of would be detrimental.

DA stated that if the AC sends the proposal to last call, the AC has the option to recall it or not accept later. In the event the AC accepts recovery fund as a proposal, then in April it will confuse people if the transfer policy was already accepted.

SL stated that the AC can pass the emergency transfer policy and, if need be, state that it is considering a better text that should be in the new proposal as to obviate or compliment it.

PA stated that if it needs to act, the Board will have to act.

JC explained that the Board has avoided making policy. In his opinion, to the extent that the AC expects the Board to act, there is value in adopting a policy. He felt more specificity would be best, but that even this current transfer policy gives more guidance to the Board to act than not having one at all. He stated he was not in favor or against, that this was his opinion.

The motion for the extended last call carried with 1 abstention (LB), and 1 against (MA).

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

MA stated that progress being made.

11. Policy Proposal “IPv4 Recovery Fund”

The Chair stated that staff had stated if the AC postponed this proposal to their next meeting; it would be under new PDP from the start. After discussing this issue, BD moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘IPv4 Recovery Fund’, postpones the decision on the proposal in order for the shepherds to work with the author.”

This was seconded by DA. The Chair called for any further discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 1 against (OD) and 1 abstention (LB).

GM left at this time and SH joined at this time (4:36 p.m.).

12. Policy Proposal “Depleted IPv4 Reserves”

For the same reasons of having the proposal under the new PDP, SL moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, “Depleted IPv4 Reserves”, postpones the decision on the proposal in order to bring the proposal in under the newly approved Policy Development Process.”

This was seconded by BD. There were no further comments.

The motion carried with 2 abstentions (LB, DA, OD).

13. Discussion of Election of AC Chair

At the last AC meeting, the Chair stated that the AC needs to elect new a Chair. If there is AC consensus, the Board would be amenable to a change in the AC election procedure for 2010. Nomination will open January 2, 2009 and close on January 3, 2009. The candidates need to respond by January 2, 2009. Candidates would be announced on January 7, 2009 with voting taking place from January 7, 2009 to January 10, 2009. The Chair would be announced on January 10, 2009 at the close of voting.

The Chair stated that the AC discussed alternative strategies, since the weekends make it inconvenient. He asked if there were questions on this timeframe or process. There were none. The Chair stated that staff will send an email to coordinate the process when it begins.

14. Standing Rule for First Face-to-Face AC Meeting

At the last AC meeting, the Chair suggested that the AC amend its current standing rule to specify and define the timeframe of its first meeting of each year for facilitation and ease of planning, much like the ARIN Board does for its first meeting of each year. The Chair called for comments. It was the sense of AC to discuss this topic during their January workshop.

15. Any Other Business

The Chair reminded the AC there would be no teleconference in January since they are holding a workshop.

A) RIPE Transfer Policy. The AC discussed the policy and what it does for the RIPE region.

ND left at this time (5:09 p.m.).

B) ARIN Fellowship Committee Program. Susan Hamlin explained that the Board approved this program effective in early January, to be kicked off at the ARIN meeting in San Antonio. She explained that it would apply to one member from each sector of the ARIN region. ARIN would request an AC member as a mentor volunteer for each chosen fellowship person, and for one to sit on the Fellowship Committee. The Chair agreed. Susan explained that this program targets non-attendees as an outreach effort to expose new people to ARIN meetings. They can then share the information in their sector.
C) Outgoing AC Members. OD wanted to thank the departing AC members, Alec Peterson, Matt Pounsett and Suzanne Woolf. The Chair and AC offered their thanks to AP, MP and SW for their many years of service to AC.

As a side note, the Chair acknowledged himself and OD for attendance at all of the AC’s meetings in 2008. He stated that, on average, each member missed about 3 meetings per year.

16. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:14 p.m. EDT. BD moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by MP. The motion carried unanimously.