Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 19 February 2009 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Marla Azinger (MA), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Leo Bicknell (LB)
• Marc Crandall (MC)
• David Farmer (DF)
• 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
• Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services

Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan, ESQ

Apologies:

• Paul Andersen, (PA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Bill Darte (BD)

Absent:

• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)

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. The Chair added a discussion regarding the AC meetings that are held during ARIN meetings under Any Other Business. DF requested discussion of the ‘High Level Plan’ that LB posted to the AC Wiki. The Chair also added this under Any Other Business.

3. Approval of the Minutes

SL moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of January 24, 2009, as written.”

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

The motion carried with no objections.

4. General Counsel Report

Counsel provided an attorney-client privileged report to the AC.

5. Policy 2007-14: Resource Review Process

This policy was ratified on February 6, 2009, during the meeting of the ARIN Board of Trustees.

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

On February 6, 2009, during the meeting of the ARIN Board of Trustees, this policy was ratified and the Board declared a State of Emergency to further make edits provided by Bill Woodcock and Counsel. John Curran, stated the Board has not given instructions for implementation to staff, due to the edits that needed to be made. He explained that the Board-created emergency draft policy will be posted to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) for 10 days for community discussion. The AC will review the discussion and make a recommendation to the board, per the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP).

John stated that the Board sense is that the policy is very necessary but, as currently written, needs changes to the language on when the policy would be implemented. The Board also agreed that the sunset clause, as written, undermines the value of policy, and creates a bad precedent for ARIN. Additionally there are some clarifications that need to be made on a few definitions.

John stated the policy will already be in effect when it goes before the community at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in April, in accordance with the ‘Emergency Special Policy Actions’ outlined in the ARIN PDP.

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

LR stated that SL had made some suggestions; and, that she also has ideas, but they have not had time to address them. There will be discussion on the AC’s list to post the draft policy to the PPML for comment. Legal and staff reviews have been conducted in the past, however, additional reviews will be made before the ARIN meeting.

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

MA stated that the group of authors completed a revised version. There needs to be a parallel policy, but that policy will be more controversial. Input from ARIN staff will be reviewed by the AC, and then posted to the PPML.

9. Policy Proposal: Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address

The Chair stated that the Clarity and Understanding Report from staff is due to the AC on February 20, 2009.

DA moved:

“Per the Policy Development Process, the ARIN Advisory Council moves to postpone the decision on this proposal until the next scheduled Council meeting, awaiting the Clarity and Understanding Report from ARIN staff.”

This was seconded by MA. The Chair called for discussion. The AC was in agreement to postpone this proposal.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

10. Policy Proposal “IPv4 Recovery Fund”

Shepherds were unavailable to comment. The author, LB, provided an update, stating that there has been no discussion on the PPML on this proposal. He stated he made an explanatory video that he posted to the AC Wiki, and 4 people had downloaded it. SL felt it should have a policy number and it should go before the community at the ARIN meeting.

The Chair stated he downloaded the video and it helped him to better understand the proposal. He explained that the next steps for this proposal is for the AC to agree it is a Draft Policy to be sent for legal and staff review; and, posted to the PPML in accordance with the deadline for the ARIN meeting. The Chair stated he would update the shepherds on the status.

11. Policy Proposal “Depleted IPv4 Reserves”

SL stated that he sent an update to the AC and updated their Wiki. The author (DA) proposed new text with regard to a high water mark. After the AC reviews said text, the proposal will be posted to the PPML. The Chair pointed out that SL’s posting on the Wiki was very helpful. SL thanked MA for her assistance on using the AC’s new Wiki.

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

SL stated that there was concern whether it would be good for ARIN to go forward with this policy. He felt it needed revisions and suggested that returning space be optional, not mandatory. The Chair stated it is on the agenda for the APNIC meeting in Manila, and it will be interesting to see what comes out of that discussion.

MA stated the AC needs to look at it from the standpoint of being good for ARIN or not; stating that the proposal does not support the ARIN regions’ policies. She did not support this proposal. SL stated that existing policy does not address the issue of ’no free pool’. This proposal allows IANA to do something after exhaustion, and the AC should work with it in that regard. The Chair pointed out that other proposals have been drafted on the issue.

Counsel stated he could comment on this proposal to the AC for their reference. The AC agreed.

LB stated he had read the proposal twice and was confused regarding what the impact on the IPv4 Recovery Fund proposal would be if it were to be moved forward with this global policy. He welcomed suggestions on compatibility if both were to be moved forward. SL felt the only way was to make it optional to return space. The Chair stated they would await legal review.

13. Any Other Business

A) AC Meeting held during ARIN Meetings. The Chair revisited the Standing Rules that the AC adopted on May 15, 2008 regarding this topic. The AC’s Standing Rules currently state: “2. The ARIN Advisory Council holds a meeting in person during the afternoon following a morning Member’s Meeting.”

The Chair asked the AC for their opinion on when they wanted to hold their meeting, within the dates of any given ARIN meeting. He stated it could be held the evening of the Public Policy Meeting, or on the afternoon following the Member Meeting, as per the Standing Rules. He explained that it was not mandatory to hold an AC meeting, but since they are all in attendance at ARIN meetings, it was beneficial. The Chair stated that in order to change a standing rule they needed to make a motion.

MA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council Meeting will be held on the evening after the close of the final Public Policy Meeting.”

This was seconded by DA. The Chair called for discussion. The AC expressed their preferences. It was the sense of the AC that the Standing Rule remain as-is.

The motion failed via roll call vote, with 4 in favor and 6 against (DA, LB, DF, SL, HS, RS).

B) High Level Plan. LB had written a document regarding a procedure on what to do before IPv4 run-out. DF liked the document and felt it worthy of policy work. The Chair stated that this is on the AC Wiki, and members can discuss and edit it there. SL asked the AC to review the document.

The Chair called for any other business. There was no other business.

14. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:32 p.m. EST. MA moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by LR. The motion carried unanimously.