Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 December 2009 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Paul Andersen (PA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Marla Azinger (MA)
• Leo Bicknell (LB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Lea Roberts (LR)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)

Minute Taker

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst
• Nate Davis, COO

Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan

Observers:

• Bill Sandiford
• Chris Morrow
• Tom Zeller

Apologies:

• Marc Crandall
• Heather Schiller

Absent:

• Stacy Hughes

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

3. Interim Appointment to the Advisory Council (AC)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of October 23, 2009, as written.”

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of November 11, 2009, as written.”

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

The motions carried with no objections.

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

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 during the Last Call period, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, supports Draft Policy 2009-8: Equitable IPv4 Run Out, and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that a number of people commented on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), with no one opposed to the proposal in the last call phase. He noted some discussion of changing some text, but that there was no support to do that at this time.

LR joined at this time (4:09 p.m. EST)

The motion carried with 10 in favor, and 2 abstentions (MA, LB), via roll call.

Counsel joined at this time (4:10 pm EST.)
SH joined during roll call (4:11 pm EST), and therefore, did not vote on this item.

5. Proposal #95: Customer Confidentiality

MA asked that staff take a look at the second line in the text, which she stated is operational in nature and requested it be removed. The Chair stated ARIN staff will review. DF felt the proposal should be re-posted to the PPML due to related threads regarding SWIP discussions. MA stated she planned on reposting the proposal to the PPML.

6. Proposal #97: Waiting List for Un-Met IPv4 Requests

SL stated this proposal was ready for policy number assignment, and will send a recommendation stating such to the AC Chair. There were no objections to this suggestion.

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

OD stated this proposal was ready for policy number assignment, and will send a recommendation stating such to the AC Chair. There were no objections to this suggestion.

8. Proposal #101: Multi-homed Initial Allocation Criteria.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Multi-homed Initial Allocation Criteria’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. CA stated there was no discussion on PPML in the past, but felt that the AC should try to make a policy that is usable. She saw the need to work on initial allocation criteria, and noted that there had been constructive comments since posting this proposal recently to the PPML. BD stated that he was not confident the proposal would make it, but agreed that discussion should take place to see if a useful policy could be produced.

The motion carried with 12 in favor and 1 abstention (LB), via roll call.

9. Proposal #102: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations

HS had sent an email to the AC’s list stating that she had emailed the authors, and she recommends that the AC accept the proposal onto their docket with the intent to work on the proposal given the comments on the PPML. RS stated that he and HS spoke with the authors, and that they were all frustrated by the PPML discussion which was predominantly made up of the usual few community members who post their views, but no new participants. RS did agree that the proposal should be accepted onto the AC’s docket. It was moved by RS and seconded by BD, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments. The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

10. Proposal #103: Change IPv6 Allocation Process

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Change IPv6 Allocation Process’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated this proposal was complicated, but it had PPML support and simplifies IPv6 allocations down. He felt it was worthy of discussion and work. DF felt it was important to have on the AC’s docket so that the AC could add the necessary items to give the proposal a chance, noting that needs basis and other topics needed to be addressed.

OD felt it was a bad policy and the method by which it seeks to simplify IPv6 allocations was not beneficial. He felt it may be damaging to the Internet, and a boon to operators who want to filter and treat smaller organizations as second class citizens on the Net. He felt it too dangerous.

BD noted that if the AC accepts this and Proposal #104 onto its docket, it allows the AC the ability to deal with that issue, regardless of how the proposals are couched. He asked if OD saw any utility in accepting the 2 proposal onto the docket, and working on them to produce a useable policy. OD replied he felt it disingenuous to accept proposals and then have the AC rewrite them, versus just abandoning them and crafting a new one if the AC wanted to do that.

The Chair asked DF and SL whether or not they felt there were good aspects in this proposal from which to build a draft policy. DF felt there were some good aspects, but that there were more of the aspects that were not good contained in the proposal.

LB stated that if the AC rejects the proposal, he felt the odds of anyone petitioning it would be low. He felt that accepting it and modifying it is underhanded; but, abandoning it and incorporating the few good aspects into another proposal would be upfront and a cleaner process.

The Chair asked LB how he felt about accepting the proposal and stating that there is much work to be done to it. LB felt in that case the AC would be saying there is something useful in the proposal overall. He pointed out that if the bad aspects of the proposal outweigh the good, take the few good aspects and tack them onto another. He felt the community would understand that versus taking the proposal as is and then removing the majority of it.

SL disagreed stating that the community supported the idea, not the text. He felt most members will support the idea, and accept a re-write of the proposal. He felt that this is closer to the community’s expectation.

DA stated if the AC believes in the intent of the proposal then accept onto docket.

SL pointed out that the AC is not making the decision to push the proposal forward. The AC is making the decision on whether or not to have shepherds assigned to work the proposal.

DA replied that the proposal does not have to be on the AC’s docket to be discussed; other topics have been discussed at ARIN meetings, without being on the AC’s docket. The Chair pointed out however in that case, this proposal will not have anyone working on it from the AC.

BD stated that accepting this to the docket states that AC sees utility in, at least, the concept. If the AC does not want to work on it, then it should not be accepted to the docket. DF stated interest in working on it.

RS stated that he was in favor of accepting it onto the docket for discussion, but was also undecided and was leaning toward not accepting it and discussing it with the authors to come up with a better proposal for a better starting point.

Hearing no further discussion, the Chair called for a roll call vote.

The motion failed with 5 in favor, 7 against (DA, PA, MA, LB, OD, LR, RS), and 1 abstention (SH) via roll call.

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. SL suggested a friendly amendment to also then abandon proposal #104: Multiple Discrete Networks for Proposal 103, as they were linked.

DF accepted the friendly amendment, and RS seconded.

The Chair read the new motion:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Change IPv6 Allocation Process’, and the proposal entitled “Multiple Discrete Networks for Proposal 103”, abandons them. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. MA stated she felt that if there were good aspects to the ‘Change IPv6 Allocation Process’ proposal, the AC should do something with those redeeming aspects.

The Chair stated that DF and SL need to explain to author why the AC abandoned these two proposals, and state the aspects that we found to be worthy of further action. MA requested letting the author know that the AC is willing to work with him. DF agreed, noting this needs to be done quickly due to the Policy Development Process timelines.

The motion to abandon the two proposals carried unanimously via roll call.

11. Proposal #104: Multiple Discrete Networks for Proposal 103.

Discussed above in item 10.

12. Any Other Business.

1. AC Chair Election Procedure. Chair posted the URL and timeline on this matter, and wanted to make sure observers also received it.
2. Outgoing AC Members. The Chair and the AC thanked LR, LB and PA for their service to the AC, as this was their last meeting as members of the ARIN Advisory Council.
3. AC Agenda for January 2010. BD asked if there was still time to submit item suggestions to the Chair to be added to the AC’s next agenda. The Chair stated there was time.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:51 p.m. EST. SH moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by BD. The motion carried unanimously.