Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 21 May 2009 [Archived]

Teleconference

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)

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin (EB) Policy Analyst
• Thérèse Colosi, Scribe
• Nate Davis, COO

Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan, ESQ

Absent:

• Heather Schiller (HS)

Apologies:

• Robert Seastrom (RS)

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for comments. LB requested a discussion be added regarding new proposals that have been sent to the list and how to handle them going forward. Chair added this to Item 8. Any Other Business. SL stated the proposals that he submitted were on hold until Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy is approved. He stated his proposal could wait until the next ARIN Meeting in October. LB, CA, DF also had each submitted proposals.

LR requested a discussion regarding the next deadlines for next steps on proposals. The Chair stated that EB would be providing an overview; and, the Chair added this to Any Other Business stating it would be discussed before the request to discuss new proposals.

3. Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment

LR stated she had only spoken to SH regarding this draft policy. SH had stated that four additional proposals should come out of this one, separating the issues. LR stated that she has been out of town since the meeting, and did not have any further information. OD volunteered to help.

4. Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC’s

MA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIII 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 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC’s and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

DF seconded the motion. Chair called for discussion. MA thanked everyone who worked on this draft policy. DF asked if anyone had seen feedback on the Last Call for this draft policy. No one recalled seeing any feedback.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

5. Draft Policy 2009-3 (Global Policy Proposal): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries

SL stated he had attended the AFRINIC meeting recently held in Cairo, Egypt. He stated they had discussed this policy there, in general, and how it works. There was consensus on the floor at the AFRINIC meeting that the policy be implemented for all registries, as-is.

MA stated she had attended the RIPE meeting recently held in Amsterdam, Netherlands. She stated this proposal was discussed there and that there was consensus that they were in favor of ARIN’s rewrite regarding legacy Space; and, that RIPE plans to follow the same course.

Discussion ensued with opinions being given. OD moved to table this discussion until the AC’s next teleconference. BD stated that he did not agree, and suggested moving the discussion to the AC’s list instead. All agreed with the Chair stating that discussion would continue on AC’s list.

6. Proposal #84: IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks

OD stated there were no updates at this time.

7. Proposal #87: Extend 16 bit ASN Assignments

MA moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Extend 16 bit ASN Assignments’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

SH seconded the motion. The Chair called for discussion. MA explained that at the recent RIPE meeting there had been good conversation regarding 16 to 32 bit ASNs, with several people stating that they had problems with 32 bit not working as it should. Upgrades that exist have not yet been implemented, and other attendees stated that their equipment would not be able to route 32 bit ASNs. Networks are not yet ready for 32 bit ASNs.

MA further explained that she had voted in favor of the current policy however, her network also was not yet ready. She stated that she wrote this proposal because she felt responsible. She had spoken with Leslie Nobile, ARIN’s Director of Registration Services, regarding the fact that there is no definition of how to handle the pool after differentiation. Unless the definition is revised to reflect that ’the lowest bit gets used first’, this policy is needed. If the definition is revised, MA stated she would withdraw this motion – unless Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) opinion differs.

Due to scheduling conflicts, SL left the meeting at this time (4:30 p.m. EDT).

DF stated that he supported the motion.

LB stated he believed there is a remarkable amount of a lack of understanding on how this works. Many think their equipment is incapable because they are doing it the wrong way. Not all equipment has to be 32 bit capable, and that has not been explained very well. He felt the AC and ARIN staff could help remedy this with education. He realized there were limited resources on the subject, but if what existed were to be better disseminated, some may find there is no problem.

The Chair stated that by putting the proposal on the AC’s docket these issues can be explored and the AC could make recommendations. LB agreed.

BD asked if anyone was against putting the proposal on the AC’s docket. OD stated that he was against it. He explained that, in the past, the AC has abandoned proposals because the time was not right, or the proposal wouldn’t pass based on community feedback. He felt this would be inconsistent, stating that a policy about ASNs was put in place with advance notice and input from the community. The crowd went mild, and now the policy is in place and pushing them forward. If this is one goes on the docket, it would be a stall for them. 32 bit will be simpler than the 128 bit transition that is coming. It should not be delayed any longer.

DF then stated that OD convinced him to oppose the motion.

The motion carried with 10 in favor, and two against (OD, DF) via roll call.

8. Any Other Business

A. PDP and Timeline for October ARIN XXIV Meeting. EB presented the timeline to the AC to assist them in scheduling their future meetings, and determine the draft policies that will make it onto the October ARIN meeting agenda.

BD reminded the AC that ARIN staff needed 10 days for assessments. The Chair stated that the AC could either have the decision about the readiness of draft policy text done via teleconference; or, let the shepherds determine when it is ready for staff/legal review without holding a teleconference. Then, when staff returns it to the AC, the AC can recommend assignment of a policy number and post it to the PPML. OD agreed. EB stated that the latter worked very well for April ARIN meeting.

The Chair called for any objections. DF asked to have this information posted on the AC’s Wiki for reference. Chair tasked MA to do so. MA agreed.

BD wanted to ensure that adequate discussion take place. He stated he would object if an AC member drafts policy, shepherds it, and moves it to staff without adequate discussion. The Chair clarified that this cannot happen. The Chair and Vice Chair will see it, and it will be posted to the AC’s Wiki with 2 business days for the AC to respond.

EB stated that the August AC teleconference is the date-driven meeting for the October agenda. He stated that he will remind the AC where the proposals stand in the PDP process to help the AC facilitate them.

LR suggested obtaining feedback from the community, via the PPML, while the AC is developing proposals. The Chair agreed.

B) Pre-proposals. LB stated he had submitted three of them and asked how to move them forward. The Chair asked which proposals LB had submitted.

LB stated, the ‘Runout Fairly’ proposal, which mirrors RIPEs; the ‘IPv6 Single Aggregate’ proposal, which ARIN staff had recommended at the ARIN XXIII Open Policy Hour; and, the ‘IPv6 End User’ proposal, which is not dependent on IPv4 – which, he noted, a lot of people in the room said they wanted.

The Chair asked LB if he wanted to volunteer to be responsible for the Runout Fairly proposal. LB volunteered.

The Chair called for volunteers to be responsible for the IPv6 Single Aggregate proposal. SH volunteered. CA stated that if the 200 site issue was removed from this proposal, her own proposal could ‘go away’ and she would volunteer to help on this one.

The Chair called for volunteers to be responsible for the IPv6 End User proposal. DF volunteered to look at it, but not commit to it.

DF stated that he wrote a minimum allocation proposal, which could be viewed as either complimentary to the Runout Fairly proposal, or an alternative way of doing it, as no one liked overall maximum allocation. He stated it needs to be tapering rundown. The Chair stated that DF should work with LB and possibly merge their proposals. LB and DF agreed to work together.

Chair asked for any others new proposals. DF stated there was one on Safe Harbor, but would hold off on it; and the one on a Listing Service is dependent upon the implementation of Policy 2009-1.

BD reminded the AC of the obligation to get input from PPML. He stated that ideas are good, but to engage the PPML sooner rather than later. The Chair agreed.

CA asked if other AC members felt the proposal deadline was too far in advance of the October ARIN meeting. The Chair stated the AC should discuss the issue on their list.

9. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:05 p.m. EDT. SH moved to adjourn. BD seconded the motion.