Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 June 2009 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

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

Minute Taker

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin (EB) Policy Analyst
• Nate Davis, COO
• John Curran, Acting President & CEO
• Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services

Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan, ESQ

Absent:

• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Heather Schiller (HS)

Apologies:

• Cathy Aronson (CA)

1. Welcome

The Vice Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EDT, noting that the Chair was delayed.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Vice Chair deferred this time until after Item 3., to give the Chair time to join the teleconference.

3. Approval of the Minutes

A) It was moved by BD, and seconded by OD that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of April 29, 2009, as written.”

The motion carried with no objections.

B) It was moved by OD, and seconded by BD that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of May 21, 2009, as written.”

The motion carried with no objections.

The Chair joined the teleconference at 4:07 p.m. EDT. The Vice Chair briefed the Chair on the meeting in progress. The Chair resumed the meeting, and stated that Item 2 would be discussed.

2. Agenda Bashing

PA requested a discussion regarding the priority of proposals currently in progress. This item was added to the agenda to be discussed before the proposals.

John Curran requested that he provide an update on the search for an ARIN CEO. The Chair agreed to discuss this as the next item.

A) Update regarding ARIN’s CEO Search. John Curran provided a privileged update to the Council.

B) Priority of Proposals. PA stated that some proposals may need to be delayed, or not accepted, based on their immediate need; and, due to the fact that there were 16 proposals in progress. Good policy cannot be made in haste. This would not be good for the Community or for the AC.

It was noted that the shepherds of the proposals need to update their templates and post them.

John Curran reiterated the fact that from the beginning of the policy development process (PDP) to the end, there is a functioning petition process that may be engaged at anytime by the community. He advised that the AC keep their intentions of any given proposal communicated to the community, so that the community understands the proposal(s) status, and if the community would need to engage the petition process.

BD suggested that the AC also explain to the community that the reason the AC may defer working on a proposal, rather than abandoning a proposal, is due to prioritizing more timely work that needs to be done; and, if a proposal has merit, it needs to be on the AC’s docket. John Curran agreed stating that as long as it is publicly stated, the petition process can be engaged if the community chooses to do so. He also explained that the PDP is being revised to show that the petition process exists in parallel at all times.

DF suggested that if the AC determines that they will not be able to work on a proposal in time for the next ARIN Public Policy Meeting (PPM), communications should include wording that indicates that the AC intends to work on it after next ARIN PPM.

All agreed. John Curran added that it should explain that the petition process remains open and can be used at anytime.

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

LR stated that there was no update at this time.

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

John Curran stated this draft policy will be considered for ratification at the Board’s next meeting in July.

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

SL stated that alternate text had been posted to the AC, and was posted to Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), that takes the regional policy out of the global policy.

LB stated that the one-fifth issue seems universally disliked. It was determined that the AC will discuss this on their list with any other suggestions.

7. Proposal #84: IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks

OD stated he had not received an update from HS (as primary shepherd) on the status of this proposal, but he felt it was ready for staff , and should be moved forward. The Chair stated OD should follow the process, move the proposal forward, and keep HS informed. OD agreed.

8. Proposal #87: Extend 16 bit ASN Assignments

MA to review comments and send it through the process.

9. Proposal #88: IPv4 Example Shortages

It was moved by OD, and seconded by MA, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘IPv4 Example Shortages’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

OD stated that the author was in agreement.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

10. Proposal #89: (Global) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries

It was moved by MA, and seconded by SL, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ’(Global) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

MA stated this was a global event and other RIRs are working to put this into their processes. This proposal will be at the next ARIN PPM in Dearborn, MI in the fall. OD felt it was better as-is, than not at all. SL stated he was working with LACNIC to get it into their system. MA thanked him. DA asked how soon it would be ratified if it is approved. SL answered it could be ratified by early 2010.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

11. Proposal #90: Open Access to IPv6

It was moved by OD and seconded by BD that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Open Access to IPv6’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair asked if the intent is to present this proposal at the ARIN PPM in Dearborn. OD replied that is the intent.

The motion carried 8 in favor, and 4 against (JS, LB, LR, RS), via roll call.

12. Proposal #91: Sunset Clause for Liberalized Transfer Policy

It was moved by PA and seconded by LR that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Sunset Clause for Liberalized Transfer Policy’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

OD felt this proposal will be petitioned by the community and it should be accepted, not abandoned. However, the AC should not work on this proposal until after the ARIN PPM in Dearborn, MI in the fall.

DF felt it should be on the AC’s docket and dealt with after the ARIN PPM. He felt the issue would come up during the PPM in the discussion of 2009-1: Transfer Policy, and it would be dealt with then. BD agreed.

RS felt that speed is not of the essence since this proposal, if passed, will cause action to take place three to five years from now. He stated he was in favor of abandoning and not discussing this proposal at the current time, and that it should be submitted once discussion of 2009-1: Transfer Policy is over.

LB asked that if the outcome of 2009-1 turns out to be that the AC recommends that the Board change it, and Board agreed to that, would 2009-1 need to be presented again at the spring 2010 ARIN PPM. John Curran stated, that yes, it would be presented again at that meeting.

MA stated she was in favor of motion, as this proposal was not immediately important.

OD stated that, given what John Curran had said, he disagreed with RS. Discussing this proposal in Dearborn, prior to discussion 2009-1, is the most straight forward way to handle it. He felt that without addressing it, the sunset clause discussion will get weighed down in 2009-1; and, 2009-1 will come back again next spring (2010). He felt it should be debated first, and let it move on openly and transparently.

PA suggested a statement explaining that when 2009-1 and 2008-6 were discussed, the sunset clause was included in discussion; and at the ARIN meeting in San Antonio, TX, it was discussed in length as part of 2009-1. He felt there had been enough discussion.

The motion carried 6 in favor to abandon, 5 against (BD, OD, DF, SL, LR), and 1 abstention (LB) via roll call.

PA requested of the Chair, to discuss Item 16 at this time, as he needed to leave the teleconference shortly, and he is the primary shepherd of that proposal. The Chair agreed to discuss item 16 at this time.

16. Proposal #95: Customer Confidentiality

It was moved by PA and seconded by SL that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Customer Confidentiality’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket; and, to delay working on it until after the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Dearborn, MI.”

SL stated that there was interesting work to be done, but not enough time to do it before the ARIN PPM. LB stated that several of the old arguments don’t apply equally to IPv6; and, it should be asked, ‘Does IPv6 make a difference’?

The motion carried with 11 in favor, and 1 against (MA), via roll call.

PA left the call at this time (5:05 pm. EDT).

13. Proposal #92: A Modest Proposal for an Alternate IPv6 Allocation Process

It was moved by BD and seconded by OD that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘A Modest Proposal for an Alternate IPv6 Allocation Process’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket, and will continue to work on it for presentation at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Dearborn, MI.”

The Council discussed accepting versus abandoning this proposal. It was the sense of the AC that this proposal would create bad policy, as it is not in ARIN’s charter to address routing; it is virtually only one ISP’s problem; was very wasteful; and, mixes routing with regular address management, which is in poor form.

SL stated that he felt it had kernels of good ideas and could possibly be used for developing a different policy after the ARIN PPM in Dearborn.

After discussion, BD suggested he withdraw his motion. The Chair called for any objections to withdrawing the motion to accept. There were no objections.

It was moved by DA, and seconded by MA, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘A Modest Proposal for an Alternate IPv6 Allocation Process’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

BD to write a message regarding the outcome, copy to the AC, and send it, via staff, to the author.

14. Proposal #93: Predicable IPv4 Run Out by Prefix Size

It was moved by DF, and seconded by SL, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ,‘Predicable IPv4 Run Out by Prefix Size’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket, and will continue to work on it for presentation at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in Dearborn, MI.”

DF stated the need to get IPv4 run-out policies out as quickly as possible. LB was optimistic that Proposal Nos. 93 and 94 would be merged into proposal to be presented in Dearborn. DF agreed.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

15. Proposal #94: Predictable IPv4 Run Out by Allocation Window

It was moved by LB and seconded by LR that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Predictable IPv4 Run Out by Allocation Window’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

Given the discussion above, SL stated that the AC should get a sense of how to merge the two proposals from PPML comments, and then merge them at time of draft policy.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

16. Proposal #95: Customer Confidentiality

Discussed previously.

17. Any Other Business

SL requested the AC send their comments via email regarding whether any of the proposals to be considered on their next call should be dealt with outside of the PDP (for example, via the ARIN Suggestion & Consultation Process (ASCP) instead of accepting them as draft policies. The Chair requested SL follow up on the AC’s list with an email request for comments.

DF stated he had previously volunteered to work on the ‘IPv6 End User’ proposal. He had deferred working on it due to his current workload. He asked the AC if he should defer until after the ARIN PPM in Dearborn. The Chair requested DF follow up on AC’s list with an email request for comments.

18. Adjournment

The Chair adjourned the meeting at 5:26 p.m. EDT.