Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 January 2010 [Archived]

Reston, VA

Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Robert Seastrom (RS), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Marla Azinger (MA)
• Marc Crandall (MC)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Chris Morrow (CM)
• Bill Sandiford (BS)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Tom Zeller (TZ)

Minute Taker

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis, COO

Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:22 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted, and acknowledged MC and HS would be delayed.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for comments. The Chair stated two motions would need to be made regarding the Number Resource Policy and the Policy Development Process and added thes items to Any Other Business on the agenda.

3. Approval of the Minutes

It was moved by SH and seconded by OD that:

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

The motion carried unanimously with no objections.

4. Proposal #95: Customer Confidentiality

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. MA stated this proposal was problematic in its wording and how it realistically could be implemented. SL stated it was an issue of organizational privacy, not personal privacy.

MC and MA will send a message to staff for posting to the Public Policy Mailing List.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

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

It was moved by SL and seconded by MA that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “Waiting List for Un-Met IPv4 Requests”, selects it as a Draft Policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated there were only a few comments from staff needing to be incorporated. Overall, it was ready to move forward.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

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

It was moved by OD and seconded by DF that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “/24 End User Minimum Allocation Unit”, selects it as a Draft Policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.”

HS joined the meeting at this time (1:34 pm EST).

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated he felt it should be discussed at the meeting. He stated there was also interaction with the Transfer Policy which needs discussion. CM felt it did not change anything about the burden of ISPs. He felt it was pointless.

OD felt there were a number of end user organizations that would like to legitimately apply; and would rather have freedom to switch providers without the burden on the routing table. He felt for this portion of the community the proposal was significant and useful. MA agreed with CM feeling it was a non-issue.

CA stated that even if the proposal moves forward, it may not survive. SL stated that putting it up for adoption discussion gives it a place on the agenda. He noted it will get discussion in other areas at the ARIN meeting. He felt it was better to give it a place on the agenda if the AC decided to have it discussed.

MC joined the meeting at this time (1:41 pm EST).

DF noted that if it is not given a policy number it cannot move forward. It could, however, still be discussed. He felt it should move forward; and, that it was well-drafted and understandable. He felt it was worthy of discussion and Community input.

RS stated he was in favor of the motion to select it as a Draft Policy for adoption discussion.

The motion carried with 8 in favor, 6 against (DA, CA, MA, SH, HS, TZ), and 1 abstention (MC) via roll call.

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

CA stated that she is awaiting the author’s updates.

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

HS stated this proposal is being sent for staff and legal review.

9. Proposal 105: Simplified M&A Transfer Policy

It was moved by SL and seconded by OD that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Simplified M&A Transfer Policy’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

The Chair reminded the AC to request Staff and Legal review by February 1, in order for this proposal to be on the agenda for the ARIN meeting in April.

10. Proposal 106: Simplified IPv6 Policy

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. DF felt it needed work, but handles the issues that were in proposal #103.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

11. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other business.

A) It was moved by OD and seconded by DF that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, in the interests of better transparency and to be more consistent with the intent of the PDP, recommends to the ARIN Board of Trustees that the PDP be modified as follows:

Deadline for Petitions shall be 5 days after the last of these three events:

1. Publication of the Minutes of the meeting at which the proposal was abandoned;
2. Publication of the decision to abandon; and,
3. The actual decision to abandon the proposal.”

The Chair called for discussion. The President noted the goal was to provide the right guidance to Board, and that the timeframe should be clearly phrased. He explained that once the Board has the AC’s recommendation, the Board will forward it to a working group that will be tasked with the details.

CA stated that the intent is to give the Community optimum time to petition. The Chair pointed out that the 5 days would begin after the Minutes were posted, and the author would have already been notified that it was abandoned. The author would have a few weeks for petition.

SL pointed out that after the Minutes are published, it will be too late to petition in time for the next meeting. It should be petitioned sooner.

OD requested amending the motion to replace ‘abandon’ with the term ‘petition-able action’.

The amended motion reads:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, in the interests of better transparency, and to be more
consistent with the intent of the PDP, recommends to the ARIN Board of Trustees that
the PDP be modified as follows:

Deadline for Petitions shall be 5 business days after the last of these three events:

1. Publication of the minutes of the meeting at which petition-able action was taken on the proposal;
2. Publication of the petition-able decision; and,
3. The petition-able decision on the proposal.”

The amended motion carried unanimously via roll call.

The Chair called for recess at 2:46 p.m. EST.
BD left at 2:55 p.m. EST. SH left at 3:00 p.m. EST.
The Chair resumed the meeting at 3:41 p.m. EST.

B )Standing Rule on Voting on Final Action of Draft Policies.

It was moved by SL and seconded by DF that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council hereby resolves that changes to Internet Number Resource Policy shall be recommended to the ARIN Board of Trustees by the affirmative vote of majority of the members of the full Advisory Council.”

The Chair called for discussion. Discussion ensued regarding the merits of full majority versus having the majority of the minimum amount of AC members (8) it takes to pass a vote. The Chair noted that a proposal that is really worth being a policy will not be abandoned, even if, for example, 10 people out of 14 present at a meeting were to vote.

SL moved to amend the motion as follows:

“The ARIN Advisory Council hereby resolves that any final action on draft Internet Number Resource Policy shall be made by the affirmative vote of the majority of the members of the full Advisory Council.”

Discussion of the motion to amend ensued. DF was against it, stating that he did not want items on the AC’s docket that they could not get off of the docket. OD felt the amendment made the motion less of bad idea. BD felt it should be made proportional.

SL explained that any final action after a proposal is chosen as Draft Policy would take 8 votes – after last call, or after draft policy; but, prior to that point in time, it does not matter. HS was not in favor of the amendment because the Community has a petition process. She was in favor of having 8 votes in favor, post-ARIN meeting.

The motion to amend carried with 9 in favor, 4 against (CA, SH, HS, TZ), and 2 abstentions (MA, MC) via roll call.

The Chair then called for a roll call vote to make this amended motion a Standing Rule.

The motion for a Standing Rule on Voting on Final Action of Draft Policies carried with 9 in favor, 6 against (CA, MA, MC, OD, SH, HS) via roll call.

C) Standing Rule on Appointments to the Advisory Council. It was the sense of the AC that clarification was needed to this standing rule.

It was moved by RS and seconded by BS that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council adopts the following procedure as a Standing Rule:

In the event that one of the elected positions on the ARIN Advisory Council is vacated before the end of the term of that position, the current AC may leave the position empty or fill that position until the next election.

If the position is to be filled, it shall be done using the following procedure:

1. The AC will approach the runner-up candidate from the previous AC election who received the most votes, and at least 5% of the total votes cast.

The AC will ask this runner-up with the highest number of votes if he/she is willing to serve until the next regular election.

In the event that the first runner-up is not willing or able to serve, the AC will iterate down the list of candidates, in descending order of number of votes received, and still greater than 5%, until a replacement is found.

2. When there are no eligible candidates from the prior election, the AC will, by simple majority vote, appoint an interim representative.”

The Chair called for discussion. CA noted ambiguity stating that if there are no more candidates under #1, the AC no longer has the option to fill the seat. If no one is on the list, does the seat remain empty? The Chair stated that the AC can always leave a seat vacant until the next election.

BS suggested adding “…or decide not to fill the position” to the end of #2. DF agreed and offered this as a friendly amendment. There were no objections.

The new motion reads:

“The ARIN Advisory Council adopts the following procedure as a Standing Rule:

In the event that one of the elected positions on the ARIN Advisory Council is vacated before the end of the term of that position, the current AC may leave the position empty, or fill that position until the next election.

If the position is to be filled, it shall be done using the following procedure:

1. The AC will approach the runner-up candidate from the previous AC election who received the most votes and at least 5% of the total votes cast.

The AC will ask this runner-up with the highest number of votes if he/she is willing to serve until the next regular election.

In the event that the first runner-up is not willing or able to serve, the AC will iterate down the list of candidates, in descending order of number of votes received and still greater than 5%, until a replacement is found.

2. When there are no eligible candidates from the prior election, the AC will, by simple majority vote, appoint an interim representative, or leave the position empty.”

Counsel left at this time 3:52 pm EST.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

12. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 3:54 p.m. EST. MA moved to adjourn it was seconded by DA. The motion carried unanimously with no objections.