Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 21 April 2010 [Archived]

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

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

• Einar Bohlin

ARIN Staff:

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

ARIN Board:

• Lee Howard

ARIN Counsel:

• Stephen Ryan

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:08 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged members of the Board also in attendance, and welcomed them to the meeting. It was noted CM would be delayed.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments from the Council. The Chair asked EB to review the policy timeline looking ahead to the next ARIN meeting in October. EB reviewed the schedule with the Council.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of March 18, 2010, as written.”

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

The motion carried unanimously with no objections.

4. Draft Policy 2010-1: Waiting List for Un-Met IPv4 Requests

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXV 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 2010-1: Waiting List for Un-Met IPv4 Requests and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. It was asked whether requests would be removed from the waiting list. It was discussed that ARIN re-check the need of the request at the time of the allocation/assignment. It was noted that minimums still apply; and, that this policy does not alter current policy. If the need is justified for the space, then the allocation/assignment should be allowed. It was noted that changing the minimum may occur with a subsequent Draft Policy.

SL stated that he did not believe that this Draft Policy changes the current minimum policy. DA asked for a clarification from Staff. OD believed the Policy would allow allocation/assignments of /32s. SL pointed out that the Policy is a request for address space and that a request has to meet Policy requirements. Qualification for a /20 means one could receive a /22. TZ believed the Policy to be ambiguous; and that it did not have to move forward today. The Chair stated that the Policy can change before the List begins. SL stated that while the Draft Policy did not solve all of Staff’s problems, it does provide some guidance. MA felt it puts large and medium-sized organizations at a disadvantage. The Policy would go into effect upon adoption and implementation, per the policy, when ARIN does not have a prefix that is requested. MA did not like the lottery-type aspect of the Draft Policy.

BD asked how Staff would interpret the policy. The President explained that if you do not accept what is available, you will be offered to be placed on the list for the prefix size that you choose. The problem will come after the last request that drains ARIN’s pool. This would be the end state, and there will be nothing that can be done to give people what they need. An alternative is to give everyone a very small slice.

DA agreed with TZ that the text was ambiguous, and could be clarified and sent to last call - perhaps at the next AC meeting. RS noted the extra number of routes this may cause, noting the Policy will be short-lived (a few months optimistically). RS left the meeting.. CM joined the meeting.

OD stated he liked the fact that multiple smaller blocks aren’t put together to meet a larger request. The Chair stated the policy has to be clear, useful and technically sound. DF felt it late in the process for changes, and feedback should have been provided earlier. TZ did not like the gaming part of the Policy, stating it was not clear if one will be offered a smaller block.

SL felt it should move forward, even if not perfect. MA stated the Policy should allow cobbling together of address space to help reach as many users as possible, while limiting the number of external route announcements. HS pointed out that the RIRs show the unallocated ranges, so why can’t they say what is available – it isn’t a secret.

Discussion ensued regarding editing the Draft Policy to reflect ARIN stating what is available. DF agreed with TZ’s suggestion to revise the ambiguity. The Chair reiterated that the discussion from the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and Public Policy Meeting (PPM) needs to be included in consideration.

The motion to move this policy to Last Call failed with 6 in favor and 8 opposed (DA, MA, DF, SH, CM, HS, TZ, JS) via roll call.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXV 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 2010-1: Waiting List for Un-Met IPv4 Requests 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. OD noted that the motion was not needed. The President agreed stating that this Draft Policy was already on the AC’s docket.

The motion was withdrawn, with Draft Policy 2010-1 remaining on the AC’s docket.

5. Draft Policy 2010-2: /24 End User Minimum Allocation Unit

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXV 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 2010-2: /24 End User Minimum Allocation Unit and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD reviewed the show of hands results, and spoke in favor of the Policy. MA felt it will be abused for financial gain. SH stated she was in favor of reducing the minimum. HS expressed dislike for the boundary being set at a /24. DA did not like the renumbering requirement, and predicted the Policy would be heavily used. He suggested perhaps the incremental step to a /23 would be better. SL pointed out that the other RIRs are already at a /24 or smaller. CM is in favor of the proposal, as long as the end-user needs the space. DF and BS were also in favor of the proposal. It was noted that many small organizations are multi-homed, with provider space, and would be better off with their own space. MA suggested that the AC be careful when making comparisons with the other RIRs.

The motion carried with 10 in favor, 3 opposed (DA, MA, HS), and 1 abstention (CA) via roll call. CA abstained due to personal knowledge of a customer who could possibly benefit from this Policy.

6. Draft Policy 2010-3: Customer Confidentiality

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXV 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, abandons Draft Policy 2010-3: Customer Confidentiality. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. BS noted that during the PPM, the Presenter stated that he would like to withdraw this Draft Policy. It was noted that there was overwhelming opposition.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

7. Draft Policy 2010-4: Re-Work of IPv6 Allocation Criteria

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXV 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 2010-4: Re-Work of IPv6 Allocation Criteria and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF noted that, if needed, some slight changes can still be made to the text. MA and SL supported the Policy.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

8. Draft Policy 2010-5: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXV 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, abandons Draft Policy 2010-5: Reduce and Simplify IPv4 Initial Allocations. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD spoke in favor of the motion.

The motion carried 13 in favor, and 1 abstention, (SL) via roll call. SL stated he would have preferred to keep the Draft on the AC’s Docket. Discussion ensued regarding the procedure for AC members providing explanations for abstaining. It was noted for the record that AC members may explain their respective abstentions if they desired.

9. Draft Policy 2010-6: Simplified M&A Transfer Policy

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXV 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 2010-6: Simplified M&A Transfer Policy and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. BS stated he would abstain from this vote due to being actively engaged in a transfer. MA spoke in favor of the motion, but advised that either this draft should add in - or another proposal be written to include - a full audit of entities selling customer bases without the IP addresses. SL noted the discussion information from the PPML and the PPM. The President noted that policies allow audits, but a mandate would need Policy. DF and CM spoke in favor of the motion. OD volunteered to write a proposal for the next meeting, stating that changes to this Draft Policy would be substantive. SL agreed. BD spoke in favor of the motion, and felt issues can be brought up during Last Call. DF agreed. SH agreed stating that changes and/or even abandonment can be made after Last Call.

10. Draft Policy 2010-7: Simplified IPv6 Policy

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXV 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, abandons Draft Policy 2010-7: Simplified IPv6 Policy. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF noted the discussion from the PPML and PPM; and felt that a handful of ideas will come from the IPv6 drafts, and new proposals should be forthcoming.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

11. Draft Policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 Assignment Criteria

Discussion ensued regarding the necessity to have a motion to take no action at this time. The President suggested using either a motion to abandon, or a motion to send the Policy to Last Call in order to foster discussion. He pointed out that the motion can be withdrawn. SL asked about an option to revise a proposal. The President stated that the Draft Policy is already on the AC’s Docket. BD suggested the motions be revised. The Chair tasked Staff to revise the AC suggested motions.

DF stated there was little Community support for the Draft, but there was support for the idea, and stated he would like to work on the text in the workshop. It was the sense of the AC to revise the Draft Policy.

12. Proposal 109: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements

CA stated she would like to work on the text in the workshop.

13. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

• EB reviewed the key dates of the Policy Development Process for the next ARIN meeting cycle. There was a suggestion to publish the timeframe on the public website. ND stated that Staff will work with the AC to put this information online. BD suggested the timeline be added to the website with explanations and relevant links. CA pointed out that there is no guarantee that proposals will be taken to the next meeting by the AC.
• CA stated time is needed to discuss policy proposals, and other policy items that are not discussion of Draft Policies up for adoption, during the main session of the PPM.
• TZ noted that one of the Staff comments remarked about an inconsistency between referencing to prefix sizes (longer prefix, larger block, etc.). The President noted that this could be part of the clean-up of text. TZ offered to work on this.
• CA noted the abundance of laptop usage during the PPM.

14. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 3:07 p.m. EDT. It was moved by SH, and seconded by CA, to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously with no objections.