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

Teleconference

Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Marla Azinger (MA), Vice Chair
• 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/ARIN Board Chair
• Nate Davis, COO
• Richard Jimmerson, CIO
• Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services

Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan, ESQ

Absent:

• Dan Alexander (DA)

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum noted.

2. Emergency Transfer Policy

John Curran, provided an update to the AC on the status of Policy 2008-6 and the Emergency Policy Development Process. He stated that the Board had adopted 2008-6, but that implementation was deferred due to issues within the policy text that were not favorable for ARIN. It was the sense of the Board that the policy’s goal was not accomplished due to the policy’s sunset provision; and, that board did not want to create that precedent.

He stated that the change to the policy requires the invocation of a section of the PDP never before used under new Policy Development Process. The ARIN Board met on March 18, 2009 and adopted 2008-6, proposing administrative changes for how it is to be implemented as an Emergency Policy change, per the PDP. He further explained the policy will be posted to the PPML from Board, for a 10 day comment period. The policy will then go to the AC, and AC will send its comments and recommendations to the Board. He stressed it was important to do this in a short timeframe in order for the policy to be presented at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting in April.

The Chair called for any other questions for John Curran. The Chair then asked John for any update on hiring a new ARIN CEO. John stated that the Search Committee had selected a candidate and were in agreement; and, that ARIN should have announcement early next week. He stated if so, the new CEO would be attending the ARIN meeting in San Antonio in April.

DF requested clarity on what topics could make it onto ARIN Meeting agenda. John explained that if the AC feels an item needs to be put before ARIN’s members, the item can be on the agenda for discussion, however, it may not be able to have policy action taken due to notice requirements. John thanked the AC for their work on 2008-6.

3. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. BD requested an update on outreach efforts with which the AC had recently been involved. Chair added to this to Any Other Business and asked RJ if he would provide an update. RJ agreed.

4. Approval of the Minutes

OD moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of February 19, 2009, as written.”

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

The motion carried unanimously with no objections.

5. Discussion of Policy Development Process

The Chair stated that there have been several discussions and items regarding the current PDP and differences in opinions and objectives etc. There will be a one hour workshop after the AC’s meeting in San Antonio. The Chair asked the AC to be prepared with questions at that time. BD suggested that in advance of their April meeting, anyone with an agenda item should post it to the AC’s list in order for them to have time to review it. Chair asked Board members to attend to help clarify as well.

6. 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation

LR moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text of ‘2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation’, selects it as a draft policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.”

This was seconded by OD. The Chair called for discussion. LR suggested the edit be made to change the word ‘allocation’ to ‘assignments’ in response to the staff’s review.

LR amended the motion to change the two instances of ‘allocation’ to ‘assignments’. OD accepted the amendment.

The motion carried with 9 in favor, 4 against (MA, MC, SH, HS), and 1 abstention (JS) via roll call.

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

MA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text of “2008-7: WHOIS Integrity Policy Proposal”, selects it as a draft policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.”

SL seconded. The Chair called for discussion. PA stated that this policy will produce a very heavy workload for ARIN staff. SL felt the policy was a good idea and should be discussed at the ARIN Meeting and on the mailing list and that it should be moved forward. MA stated that there is a follow-up policy that will be written, but felt this current policy can stand alone.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

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

OD moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled “Protective Usage Transfer Policy for IPv4 Address”, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

This was seconded by CA. As a point of order, PA stated that this policy has been associated with certain blocks that may affect EP.NET exchange points. He explained that he sat on the Board of TorIX, which has an ep.net allocation, and he did not feel comfortable taking part in this discussion. The Chair then called for discussion by the other AC members. SL stated that there had been no support on the PPML; and there was an adequate option for obtaining space directly from ARIN within timeframes. OD agreed. HS agreed also, stated that she had sent a list of clarity issues to the PPML. BD asked to identify someone to draft the reason for abandonment to the community. SL volunteered. DF, as a shepherd on the policy, thanked SL for his assistance.

The Chair asked the AC if there was any part of the text that was worth looking exploring in a different context, in a general purpose manner. MA stated she also did not support the policy, but further exploration is something the AC should discuss during the AC’s meeting in San Antonio.

The motion carried with 11 in favor, and 3 abstentions (PA, DF, JS) via roll call.

9. Policy Proposal “IPv4 Recovery Fund”

CA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text of “IPv4 Recovery Fund”, selects it as a draft policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.”

This was seconded by BD. The Chair called for discussion. CA stated that there is a lot of uncertainty with this policy, and SL agreed. SL stated that the AC could get good feedback and input from the public discussion at the ARIN Meeting.

The motion carried with 13 in favor and 1 abstention (LB) via roll call.

10. Policy Proposal “Depleted IPv4 Reserves”

SL moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text of “Depleted IPv4 Reserves”, selects it as a draft policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.”

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

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

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

SL moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text of “Global Policy Proposal: Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries”, selects it as a draft policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.”

This was seconded by LR. The Chair called for discussion. MA stated she supported this motion as the revisions had been made that addressed ARIN’s issues. SL was not sure it was a good policy, but noted it had been revised and was currently a better version. DF was against the motion as he felt it needed more work. LB felt, because it is a global policy and submitted to the other RIRs, that it should be discussed in its original form, because it sends a more complicated message to other RIRs as to where ARIN stands. He felt if we want separate text, we should have separate policy for it.

OD countered that APNIC had made changes and sent them to ARIN, and APNIC has sent this policy to Last Call. He felt ARIN’s changes were absolutely necessary and critical for consideration within ARIN region, and that he was in support of the motion. SL agreed with OD, stating that the changes the APNIC region had made were incorporated into ARIN’s version. MA also supported motion, and was in agreement that it was important that other regions see the proposed changes from the ARIN region. HS stated that there is no separate mechanism for handling global policies any differently than non-global policies. The only mechanism for handling policy proposals is the PDP, and the current PDP allows for editing/modification of text. She felt that the policy should state what is best for the ARIN region in accordance with the PDP. If that means changing the text, then so be it.

MC left the call at this time (4:59 pm EDT).

The motion carried with 7 in favor, and 6 against (CA, LB, DF, SH, HS, RS) via roll call.

12. Any Other Business

AC ARIN Outreach Update. RJ explained that AC members have volunteered to help out with ARIN’s outreach efforts. CA and RS have both volunteered recently to CompTel and FOSE respectively. RJ thanked them and stated it was very beneficial to have them attend. BD stated it would be useful for AC members to give feedback in the future. RJ stated there were more AC members slated for upcoming and future outreach efforts. CA stated it was a great experience and an interesting time, and she urged others to volunteer.

The Chair called for any other business. BD stated the Fellowship program is underway, and was excited about the opportunity to be involved. HS stated it was interesting to see the different applications and the applicant’s level of interest in ARIN.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:09 p.m. EDT. PA moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by CA. The motion carried unanimously with no objections.