Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 24 January 2009 [Archived]

Reston, VA

Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Marla Azinger (MA), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Paul Andersen, (PA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Leo Bicknell (LB)
• Marc Crandall (MC)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Lea Roberts, (LR)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst
• Thérèse Colosi, Scribe
• John Curran, Interim CEO
• Nate Davis, COO
• Richard Jimmerson, CIO

ARIN Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan, ESQ

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:06 a.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Appointment of Advisory Council Vice-Chair

The Chair appointed Marla Azinger to serve as Vice Chair of the AC.

3. Agenda Bashing

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

4. ARIN General Counsel Briefing

John Curran, ARIN Board Chair, and Counsel provided the annual briefing to the Advisory Council on their role to the Internet community, Code of Conduct, disclosure, etc. John Curran stated the AC would discuss item 6, The Policy Development Process at this time. EB provided an overview of the nuances of the new PDP.

5. Approval of the Minutes

SH moved:

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

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

The motion carried unanimously with no objections.

6. The Policy Development Process (PDP)

It was the sense of the AC that they acknowledge the transition of all Draft Policies that were under the previous Internet Resource Evaluation Process, in addition to any new Policy Proposals which will begin under the PDP. Therefore,

OD moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council acknowledges the transition from the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process to the new Policy Development Process of Draft Policies: 2007-14; 2008-3; 2008-5; 2008-6; and, 2008-7, as well as the Policy Proposals entitled ‘IPv4 Recovery Fund’ and ‘Depleted IPv4 Reserves’.”

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

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

7. Policy 2008-5: Dedicated IPv4 Block to Facilitate IPv6 Deployment

The ARIN Board ratified this policy at their meeting on January 5, 2009.

8. Draft Policy 2007-14: Resource Review Process

LB stated there were no comments on the PPML during Last Call.

LB 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 Policy Development Process has been followed, supports Draft Policy 2007-14: Resource Review Process, and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

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

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

9. Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation

At the AC’s last meeting, SL volunteered to look at the text and see what he thought needed to be changed. He stated he sent information to the AC’s list. LR stated that there had not been discussion since SL’s recent post. SL stated he reworded the text to incorporate staff’s recommendations, and to try to edit accommodations from the ARIN Public Policy Meeting which were more substantial. He asked the AC for their review in order to repost the text to the PPML. LR asked for any other volunteers.

OD stated as a member of an organization putting together a community network, he would volunteer. HS requested they review the rationale of the original request for the policy. LR saw a need for this in places that would not qualify, like in the Caribbean and posed the question of what would be the criteria set for them? LR thanked SL and OD for volunteering.

10. Draft Policy 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses

BD 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 Policy Development Process has been followed, returns Draft Policy 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses to the Advisory Council’s docket for further development, as a more explicit proposal ,‘IPv4 Recovery Fund’ needs to be discussed. The Advisory Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the petition process.”

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for discussion. BD felt this draft policy was too general and that the more explicit policy proposal was better. SL felt that given the generality of the proposal, and the fact that ARIN needs to have a new transfer policy in place very soon; it would be best to move the current draft policy forward with the intent of considering more detailed revisions as future policy proposals. OD felt, given Counsel’s input and the fact that the policy would not take effect until it was needed to be used by the Board, that the AC should adopt it. He stated that if the AC felt the IPv4 Recovery Fund proposal was a better proposal, they could move it forward to supersede and repeal 2008-6.

LB stated he believed that several posts on the PPML during last call, and the author, proposed revised text for this draft policy. He stated the revisions needed to be discussed. BD explained that he had posted it to the PPML asking if the rewording made a material difference in the expressed policy proposal. He stated the response was largely that it did not make a difference. OD agreed that the intent is not changed in the proposal with said revisions.

SH felt that passing a policy sooner rather than later would be best, and this draft policy should be moved forward. She too felt that the revised text was not enough to change the intent. MA felt that even though this version is generic, the AC could always request revisions, replacement, etc.

Due to the nature of the discussion taking place, BD stated that he would like to withdraw his motion to return the draft policy to the AC’s docket.

Chair called for any objections to withdrawal of the motion to return 2008-6 to the AC’s docket. There were no objections.

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 during the Last Call period, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, supports Draft Policy 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses, and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

This was seconded by BD. The Chair called for discussion. Since there was a revised version, OD moved to amend the motion to adopt the draft policy to incorporate the changes that came out of Last Call as minor changes, not requiring another pass through Last Call.

The new motion read:

“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 Policy Development Process has been followed, supports Draft Policy 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses, as revised; and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for discussion. The AC reviewed the version from Last Call and discussed the text. LB stated he was against the amended motion if the revisions were not sent to PPML. He felt that the revisions needed to be sent it to the PPML, although minor, because the scope and breadth of this policy. BD stated that under the new PDP, the text did not need to be resent to the PPML. MA understood LB’s point, but felt the AC could adopt the Draft Policy. DF felt it could be moved forward using the amended text.

After discussion, the Chair called for the AC to vote on whether to accept OD’s motion to adopt as revised. The AC voted 10 in favor to accept the motion to adopt as revised, 3 against (DA, LR, RS), and 2 abstentions (LB, SL) via roll call.

CA then moved to strike the motion to adopt as revised, and substitute it with:

“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 Policy Development Process has been followed, supports Draft Policy 2008-6: Emergency Transfer Policy for IPv4 Addresses; and, sends it back, as revised, to Last Call for the normal 10 day period.”

This was seconded by LR. She felt that there was a lack of consensus, and that it should be explained that the AC will not declare it adopted without consensus, but stress the importance that it must happen.

BD stated that this draft policy had been on the PPML, and in various states of revision, but it has been ‘as-is’ for a long time. He felt that revisiting it for 10 more days, due to minor revisions, is unlikely to change opinion; and, under the extreme encouragement of Counsel, the AC should adopt it. SL agreed, stating that after it is adopted, the AC can put another draft proposal on the table for details of implementation. By adopting this draft policy now, the AC can move forward on substantive changes. SL opposed the motion to send to Last Call. PA and OD also agreed.

MA and HS supported the Last Call motion. DA stated that now that the text has been altered, it should go to Last Call. SL reiterated that that it was put to the PPML for requested comments, asking if it changed opinions; and, the answer was that it did not.

CA’s motion to strike adopting 2006-8, and send as revised to Last Call, failed with 10 against and 5 (DA, LB, LR, HS, RS) in favor via roll call.

Discussion then ensued regarding the final motion on the table, made by OD, to adopt 2008-6, as revised.

LB stated that he has a transfer policy proposal out for consideration. If 2008-6 was to pass, it may remove the community’s interest in discussing alternatives. CA asked if LB’s policy proposal was an enhancement or a replacement. LB stated if his policy was adopted, the current one would be rescinded. MA stated she was in favor of the motion to adopt as revised. DA stated he was against the motion on the table. DF supported it.

OD’s motion to adopt 2008-6, as revised, carried with 12 in favor and 3 against (DA, LB, LR) via roll call.

11. Draft Policy 2008-7: WHOIS Integrity Policy Proposal

MA stated the policy was going well; and, the joint-author policy proposal mailing list was being used by the authors to coordinate on the draft policy. HS agreed. MA stated that there was currently no new text, and that the deadline is January 31, 2009.

12. Policy Proposal “IPv4 Recovery Fund”

CA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘IPv4 Recovery Fund’, accepts it on to the Advisory Council’s docket; and intends to develop it into a Draft Policy.”

This was seconded by SL. The Chair called for discussion. DF moved to amend the language of the motion by striking “…and intends to develop it into a Draft Policy.” He suggested adding “… and intends to advance it through the Policy Development Process”. Brief discussion ensued.

CA moved to strike everything after ‘docket", with the new motion reading:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘IPv4 Recovery Fund’, accepts it on to the Advisory Council’s docket.”

This was seconded by OD. The Chair called for discussion. CA felt it was important to discuss this proposal, and liked the idea that it enforces the lease aspect of resources. LB stated that ‘lease’ is not a good term to use because it applies it property rights. MA supported the motion.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

EB explained that the AC’s decision will be publicly announced on the 3rd business day following this meeting, and that it is now on the AC’s docket.

13. Policy Proposal “Depleted IPv4 Reserves”

SL moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Depleted IPv4 Reserves’, accepts it on to the Advisory Council’s docket; and, intends to develop it into a Draft Policy.”

This was seconded by PA. The Chair called for discussion. PA suggested striking everything after “docket” for consistency, with the new motion reading:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Depleted IPv4 Reserves’, accepts it on to the Advisory Council’s docket.”

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

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

14. Global Policy Proposal: Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries

Counsel suggested that the new AC members received a summary - in case they need a briefing on the topic. JC provided clarification.

SL moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the global policy proposal entitled ‘Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries’, accepts it on to the Advisory Council’s docket.”

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for discussion. SL provided background on this proposal. OD stated it was complicated, with many parts, but it needs a quick turnaround. He liked the policy, but stated that it needs work and that he was in favor of the motion. LB stated the ASO AC needs to recommend it for adoption with the same text approved in all five regions. It can be changed, but all RIRs need to accept it. JC stated that in two other RIRs it will be in consideration simultaneously. CA stated that the AC should not ignore the needs of our community just to have the same text in the other regions and that collaboration on global policies has taken place before.

LB worried that sections of his proposal would be rendered un-implementable if this one should pass. SL felt revisions were in order on sections that would negatively affect the ARIN region.

The motion carried with two against (LB, DF) via roll call.

15. Standing Rule for First Face-to-Face Advisory Council Meeting

At the last AC meeting, the Chair suggested that the Advisory Council 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.

DA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council will hold its first meeting on the first available Saturday following the first ARIN Board Meeting.”

This was seconded by LB. The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that he would like to have input on when it takes place. PA felt they should continue to figure it out as they do each year. MA and SH agreed with PA, but that given the difficulty of travel schedules it needs to be set well in advance. BD felt suggesting it in October or November would be beneficial. CA felt a set date would be much easier. RS agreed stating that the further in advance, the better. DF felt having a known meeting in January is important, but with some flexibility. MC felt they should pick the date by early fall.

SL requested a discussion on the speaking rights of new members regarding elections under any other business. The Chair agreed to add this to the agenda.

The motion to have a standing rule regarding the AC’s first face to face meeting, failed with 11 against and 4 in favor ( DA, CA, LB, LR) via roll call.

16. Advisory Council Travel and the 3-Cycle ARIN Meetings

At the October 17, 2008 Advisory Council meeting, it was suggested that the Council discuss whether the entire Council need be present for every ARIN Public Policy Meeting; and, that the Council should submit its recommendation to the Board. Discussion ensued with consensus being that the entire AC should be present at all ARIN Public Policy Meetings.

17. ARIN Fellowship Program Committee

The Advisory Council needs to appoint a Council member to the ARIN Fellowship Selection Committee, and choose three ‘mentors’ for 2009. ND provided background to the AC, explaining this had been approved by the Board - and developed by staff - to encourage applicants within the ARIN sectors to attend ARIN meetings. The applicants would be accompanied by an AC mentor to learn about the meeting.

HS was chosen to sit on the Fellowship Selection Committee; with SL, CA, and BD as the Fellowship Mentors.

18. Confirmation of Advisory Council Regularly Scheduled Meetings

The Chair stated that currently, the Advisory Council meets via teleconference the 3rd Thursday of every month at 4:00 p.m. Eastern. All agreed this schedule should remain as-is.

19. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

A) AC ARIN Website Picture. RS asked if a photograph of the current AC could be taken for the ARIN website. This was then done by EB.

B) New AC Members and Speaking Rights. It was clarified that although newly-elected AC members were observers to the AC’s monthly meetings until January of the following year, if the AC decided to elect a new Chair in advance of January (i.e., shortly after the new members are elected each Fall), then those newly-elected AC members would have the right to vote for the new Chair. They would, however, remain observers during the monthly AC meetings until seated the following January.

20. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 1:08 p.m. EST. CA moved to adjourn and this was seconded by PA. The motion carried unanimously.