Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 23 October 2009 [Archived]

Dearborn, MI

Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Paul Andersen (PA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Marla Azinger (MA)
• 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)

Minute Taker

• Einar Bohlin

ARIN Staff:

• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis, COO
• Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services

Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan

Stenographer:

• Anne Chilton

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:52 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. LR requested a discussion regarding Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment. The Chair added this to Item 13., Any Other Business.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of September 17, 2009, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, and one abstention (LR).

LR explained her abstention, noting she had not attended the AC’s September 17 teleconference.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIV 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, finds Advisory Council and Community support for Draft Policy 2009-3 (Global Policy Proposal): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that the Community is less involved in providing guidance on this particular proposal than on others. He felt it was more difficult for them to understand the global issues, and the need for this proposal. He felt most of the people in the room understood those issues, and that the proposal is such that it doesn’t negatively impact the ARIN region. He noted a serious need for it in terms of the global context, the global politics of the situation. He believed it would be good to have the structure in place to redistribute these addresses; and that it should move forward being that is a good, sound, and useful policy that does not negatively impact the ARIN region, and provides benefits globally.

DF asked for the vote on the previous version of this proposal taken at the previous ARIN meeting in San Antonio. The President responded that he would look it up.

The Chair asked the AC members who recently attended other RIR meetings if they had information to share regarding views about this proposal in the other regions.

SH stated that at the RIPE meeting recently in Lisbon, the community was waiting to see what ARIN does because if they change the wording, they felt the point would be moot.

CA stated she asked about needs-based requirements at the recent APNIC meeting, but was told it would not be addressed. She stated that since then, she spoke with Paul Wilson who explained that if APNIC received a block outside of their transfer policy, they would use needs-based requirements for those simple returns.

The President pointed out that if the AC approved this version, and the four other RIRs approved the original version, it is not 100% certain what course the ASO would take going forward, but they have the option of asking the RIR staffs to draft a Global Policy which contains just the common portion of the policies.LB stated that he was against the policy because it did not have consensus in the room, or on list. He felt the results of the policy are not clear at this time. BD was also against the policy due to the fact that there was no consensus. He saw two problems, technical and political. How much space will be returned, if any? He stated he had received a suggestion to break the issues into two pieces, as a return policy and an allocation policy.

The President presented the voting information previously requested by DF. He stated that at the current ARIN Meeting, the show of hands was 21 in favor, 26 against out of 146 participants for this proposal.

Per DF’s request, he stated that at the previous ARIN Meeting in San Antonio, the show of hands on the proposal was 8 in favor, 28 against out of 123 participants. There was a second show of hands as to whether or not to keep working on this proposal. That outcome was 41 in favor, 5 against.

OD felt it would be helpful to have more information from ARIN’s Executive Director of Public Policy and Government Affairs, Cathy Handley, regarding sending the right message and the global context of the proposal. The President outlined at length possible perception issues that might occur due to adoption and abandonment, particularly in light of the proposed global nature of the policy.

DA stated he was in favor of the motion. He believed it would be more productive to sort out the differences in the ASO AC, rather than to keep this on the docket, and expect all the other regions to respond to the differences in the ARIN AC version of the text.

RS stated he opposed the motion, and wondered if moving the policy forward would send a strong enough message regarding the matter that ARIN is serious about needs-based requirements.

The President suggested to RS that text could be added along the lines of ARIN designating all such blocks for return to the IANA at the point when a binding agreement is reached by all the RIRs to perform needs-based allocation. RS agreed but still felt there was a hole when talking about the transfer policy. He felt that transfers need to be needs-based.

HS asked about the status of the new RIR allocation text change requested by Counsel. SL replied that he had discussions with various people, including Counsel, regarding what this policy needed, as written. He stated the text in question says, “…when a new RIR is recognized.” SL’s opinion was that the desired outcome was already in the policy, as written; and, that any change to that would distract from the issues that are important to the ARIN region. He felt the text should remain as-is. He noted that if anyone disagreed, he was amenable to making a minor change to clarify, but that at the time that he wrote the most recent version, and when he presented it, his opinion was that the language desired is already there.

Discussion ensued on the text of the paragraph. DF pointed out that the text is also already in paragraph 10.1.2 of the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM).

It was suggested to strike the whole paragraph from the policy proposal. SL explained that the policy is for new RIRs created with IANA, (e.g., AFRINIC and LACNIC); and the intent is for a new RIR to get a share, and get into the system.

ND asked if there were any new RIRs per ICP-2. BW stated that at some point there could be enough support for Middle East registry, but that a Middle East RIR may or may not happen near future.

It was moved by OD and seconded by SH that:

The ARIN Advisory Council amends Draft Policy 2009-3 (Global Policy Proposal): Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries, by striking paragraph “B 4. Initial Allocation of IPv4 Address Space”.

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated he did not want to strike the paragraph.

The Chair called for a ten minute break at this time (1:45 p.m. EDT). The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:50 p.m. EDT.

It was moved by OD and seconded by SL that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council amends the previous motion, to include the removal of paragraph “B.1.d Legacy Address Space. IPv4 address space allocated or assigned prior to the creation of the RIR.”

The Chair called for discussion. SH stated that she accepted this as a friendly amendment to the motion she had seconded previously.

The Chair stated there was a motion to amend the Draft Policy on the floor, and called for a roll call vote.

The motion to amend the Draft Policy to remove paragraphs B.4 and B.1.d., carried with 12 in favor, 2 against (BD, DF), and 1 abstention (LB) via roll call.

The Chair stated the motion to forward the Draft Policy to Last Call was on the floor, and called for discussion. LB stated he felt that now it is worse. He felt this was a knee-jerk reaction. He queried as to why not a simple policy to require IANA to issue to RIRs that have needs-based policy? BD agreed with LB. MA stated that she was in favor, feeling there will be political implications no matter what is done.

HS stated that the goal is a clear, consensus-based policy. We need to clearly state to the Community why we made this decision and to consider the Community’s needs.

DF reiterated the current show of hands, and stated on other voting matters this week, 20 to 30 more people participated. He wondered why the vote for this particular proposal was less and speculated on the Community’s possible lack of understanding of the inter-regional aspects of the policy. BD agreed that this might be the case.

Discussion ensued as to whether the AC wanted to move the policy forward based on the increasing community support and in order to stand in solidarity with the other RIRs on the portion of the policy in common.

The Chair called for any further discussion. There were no comments. The Chair called for a roll call vote to extend the amended text to last call.

The motion carried with 10 in favor, and 5 against (PA, LB, BD, HS, RS) via roll call.

BW left the meeting at this time (2:25 p.m. EDT).

It was noted that PA left the meeting temporarily at 2:30 p.m. EDT.

5. Draft Policy 2009-5: IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks

It was moved by HS, and seconded by CA that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIV 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, finds Advisory Council and Community support for Draft Policy Draft Policy 2009-5: IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated he did not think there was much opposition to this proposal, and he too felt it was a good policy.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

6. Draft Policy 2009-6: (Global) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries

It was moved by SH, and seconded by LR that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIV 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, finds Advisory Council and Community support for Draft Policy 2009-6: (Global) Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) Policy for Allocation of ASN Blocks (ASNs) to Regional Internet Registries and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. SH noted there was support at the ARIN meeting and that this policy has been adopted by three of the five RIRs.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

7. Draft Policy 2009-7: Open Access to IPv6

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIV 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, finds Advisory Council and Community support for Draft Policy 2009-7: Open Access to IPv6 as amended to strike Item 2, and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. MA felt the AC needs to continue to work on the second part, creating a new proposal. OD and BD preferred the 100 site option. CA felt it was more complicated than simply changing the requirement to 100, stating that the community needs more options that consider subnets and routing requirements. DA and LB agreed with CA.

The motion carried with 13 in favor, and one abstention (HS) via roll call.

8. Draft Policy 2009-8: Equitable IPv4 Run Out

Equitable IPv4 Run Out. DF stated he had just sent the AC some options on the text for the AC to discuss. Due to this event, LR suggested tabling the discussion.

It was moved by OD and seconded by SH to table the discussion of this draft policy to move through the rest of the agenda, and return to this item for discussion.

The Chair called for any objections on tabling discussion of this draft policy. The motion to table carried, with HS stating for the record that she objected to text changes ‘on the fly'.

PA rejoined the meeting at 2:44 p.m. EDT.

9. Proposal #95: Customer Confidentiality

This proposal has been deferred until after the ARIN XXIV Meeting. The Chair requested the shepherds of this proposal (PA, MC) send text to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) to foster discussion. PA and MC agreed to do so.

10. Proposal #97: Waiting List for Unmet IPv4 Requests

This proposal has been deferred until after the ARIN XXIV Meeting. SL stated that feedback to date indicates that people are trying to understand it; and, it was posted to the PPML recently for further feedback.

11. Proposal #98: Last Minute Assistance for Small ISPs

This proposal has been deferred until after the ARIN XXIV Meeting. BD stated that he and CA gathered good information during the ARIN Meeting. He noted that the title needs to be changed because it has nothing to do with small ISPs. CA agreed on the title change, and both felt there is a good idea in this policy.

12. Proposal #99: /24 End User Minimum Allocation Unit

This proposal has been deferred until after the ARIN XXIV Meeting. OD stated he felt it was ready to become a Draft Policy. The Chair requested he post it to the PPML to try to receive feedback for the next AC meeting in November.

The Chair took Item 8. Draft Policy 2009-8: Equitable IPv4 Run Out off the table, stating the AC would resume discussion at this time.

8. Draft Policy 2009-8: Equitable IPv4 Run Out

DF stated that he had sent text to the AC’s list. The text was presented for review to the AC at this time. After reviewing,

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIV 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 2009-8: Equitable IPv4 Run Out to the AC’s docket for further development. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the petition process.”

The Chair called for discussion. LB stated that he liked DF’s Option #1, to change the thresholds from 20 to 10 to 10 in the last /8s. SL stated that there is support for Option #1.

OD felt that the numbers in voting show lukewarm for support and lukewarm opposition. MA agreed, stating she did not see consensus. LB felt adoption would increase fairness. CA felt that moving it to last call today, or next month doesn’t make a significant difference.

The motion to return to the AC’s docket carried with 9 in favor, 4 against (LB, SH, HS,RS) and 2 abstentions (MC, SL) via roll call.

SL stated that he abstained because he preferred to move Option #1 forward now, and not wait for the next ARIN Meeting.

13. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

A). Discussion of Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks Assignment. The President noted that he had sent a post from the Board to the AC’s list regarding Draft Policy 2008-3. The ARIN Board noted that the AC had recommended a policy to the Board with a close vote (6 to 4) with only 10 AC members in attendance. The Board asked the AC to discuss this matter and to let the Board know what the AC thinks is sufficient level of support within the AC to identify good policy. The Board asked the AC to figure out what a good measure of consensus is within the AC, and then apply it.

LB pointed out that the AC judges community consensus, shows of hands, etc., and this varies greatly on a case-by-case basis. He believed that as the Board evaluates the AC’s decision, the metric of whether or not the AC came to consensus might vary greatly from issue to issue. He did not feel comfortable telling the Board that 6 to 4 is good or bad, but rather telling the Board that if they have a question, it is well within their prerogative to come back and ask the AC if they are certain. He would be happy to provide an answer to the Board with the rest of the AC. However, he thought that specific criteria are a bad thing.

The President replied that the Board is raising the question, “What does the AC think the right rule is?” The President acknowledged that the AC could certainly state that the right rule is that this present process is fine, if they so decide.

BD noted that it has always been majority vote to send to the Board. There have been many close votes. OD felt that retroactively changing the rules is the wrong thing to do. He stated the majority is fine, and the Board can kick back a 14 to 1, if they must. CA stated the Board had brought up the matter of electronic voting; and the AC should consider other options.

The President pointed out that electronic voting must have time for deliberation of the issues before the vote, and that email does not constitute constructive deliberation.

DA stated that while he voted against moving the proposal forward, he agreed that the process was followed. He felt the proposal should go back to the Board, and that the AC discussion of consensus should be separate from 2008-3.

LR noted it has always been simple majority. She suggested that maybe in the new AC, in 2010, it wouldn’t be appropriate. She asked if the people who were not in the meeting get to vote.

SL stated that on the subject of whether the AC followed acceptable rules when voting on Draft Policy 2008-3, he felt they did indeed; and, that should be stated to the Board in some manner. On the subject of what should the AC‘s policy be, he did not think that having electronic voting was a good idea. He felt that the vote should happen immediately after discussion. He suggested possibly instead of the threshold being the majority of quorum, the threshold be the majority of AC. If you don’t have a big quorum, then defer it to the AC’s next meeting.

The President stated that constructive deliberation is needed. He stated that the AC members on each side of the issue speak to those in opposition in order to understand their views and reasoning and decide whether to change their position. The goal is shared understanding.

RS felt there might be a need for rules, noting that the implied rule is majority. The President stated that the baseline rules are in the ARIN Bylaws: quorum in order to conduct business, and the majority of those present to approve motions.

LB noted the serious issue raised here, takeovers, etc. He asked if the local rule could be two thirds. The President stated that the Bylaws are simply a minimum. The Standing Rule could be stricter if the AC so desired.

It was moved by OD and seconded by SH that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council bifurcates these two issues, taking up the issue of reaffirming 2008-3 first, deferring the deliberation over our process and policy, with regard to the majority necessary to send future policies to the Board, as a separate issue on the mailing list initially; and, discussing that on our next conference call.”

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

The motion carried unanimously.

The Chair then called for a motion with regard to Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment.

It was moved by OD and seconded by SH that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council reaffirms to the ARIN Board that our process was followed, and Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Assignment was forwarded to the Board by a majority vote of the quorum present on the Advisory Council’s teleconference call; that we have received the Board’s message that they would like us to consider the process by which we determine to do that in the future; and, that we do not feel it is appropriate to apply that metric retroactively to this proposal.”

The Chair called for discussion stating, for clarity, that the AC is reaffirming that, as a body, the AC moved this draft policy forward, according to the rules at the time. PA stated that this motion is clarifying the validity of the process, not the merit of the proposal. DF stated that one should vote against, if one does not truly feel that the process was followed.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, and one abstention (LB) via roll call.

The Chair called for volunteers to continue to work ideas regarding the Board’s question of what the AC considers as their gauge of consensus going forward. RS and BD volunteered.

The Chair called for any further discussion. LR stated that she believed that electronic voting should be used in teleconference situations where several people are unable to be present. She felt it would enable a fairer participation by those who, for whatever reason, could not participate in the decision of the body.

B). Outgoing AC Members. SH formally thanked LB and LR for the breadth of their service to the Council and Community, on behalf of the AC.

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

14. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:04 p.m. EDT. CA moved to adjourn and this was seconded by OD. The Chair declared the meeting adjourned.