Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 February 2011 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Scott Leibrand (SL), Vice Chair
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Marc Crandall (MC)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Chris Grundemann (CG)
• Martin Hannigan (MH)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Chris Morrow (CM)
• Bill Sandiford (BS)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)

Minute Taker

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela, Staff Attorney (MA)
• Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst (EB)
• John Curran, President & CEO (JC)
• Nate Davis, Chief COO (ND)

Observers:

• Paul Andersen, ARIN Board

Apologies:

• David Farmer
• Bill Sandiford

Counsel:

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Absent:

• Marc Crandall

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted. The Chair reminded AC members to arrange their travel for ARIN XXVII, and CaribNOG 2 (if attending); and to please submit their expense reports for their January meeting if they have not already done so.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. ND stated that draft policy ARIN-2010-14, noted in Item 4, was ratified by the ARIN Board; and that the date of implementation will be forthcoming in the next few weeks.

BD requested adding a discussion regarding the explanation of AC actions being posted to the PPML. The Chair agreed to add this under any other business.

JC stated that the Policy Development Committee (PDC) is working on new drafts of the Policy Development Process (PDP), and said drafts will be sent this evening or tomorrow for the AC’s review. He welcomed comments from the AC to be sent to Lee Howard, Committee Chair, and to the AC’s Chair. He stated that comments should be discussed at the ARIN XXVII Public Policy Meeting (PPM), in San Juan in April.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of January 28, 2011, as written.”

The Chair called for any objections.

The motion carried unanimously with no objections.

4. ARIN-2010-14: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements

As stated previously by ND, this draft policy was ratified by the ARIN Board at their meeting on February 15, 2011.

5. ARIN-2011-1: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy

BD stated that this draft policy is ready to go forward with the existing language that has been posted to the PPML and on the AC Wiki. He noted that discussions are going on for alternative proposals, and hoped they would be raised during the PPM for the community to compare and decide what they wanted to do.

6. ARIN-2011-2: Protecting Number Resources

SL stated this draft policy had no changes, and is ready to go to the PPM.

7. ARIN-2011-3: Better v6 Allocation for ISPs

RS stated this draft policy is also ready to go forward to the PPM in April

8. ARIN-2011-4: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure

SL stated that this draft policy was ready for the PPM and that there was a minor change made with DF, regarding the sentence that began, “Upon receipt of the last /8” because this has now since happened. The text has been updated on the AC Wiki. OD asked if there was any foreseeable risk that would require Board action before the PPM. JC stated there was no issue at this point and did not foresee any Board action being necessary before the PPM.

9. ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension

SH stated this draft policy was ready for the PPM and that no changes have been made.

10. ARIN-Prop-126: Compliance Requirement

CG stated there is new text posted to list and to the PPML, but there is not enough time to get this on the upcoming PPM agenda as a draft policy. Therefore, it will not be one of the proposals discussed for adoption at the PPM. He stated it needs AC comments; and that most of the legal concerns were with the old text. He felt this is a good time to clean up any issues with the text and speculated that if this proposal fails, some of the points in the proposal may still be valid for a new one. OD agreed that it needed revising, but felt it a big improvement. He stated that others have made comments on the PPML.

Counsel and Paul Andersen stated they needed to leave the call at this time (4:57 p.m. EST).

11. ARIN-prop-131 Section 5.0 Legacy Addresses

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Section 5.0 Legacy Address’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

CA noted that she had posted revised text to the AC’s list for consideration as draft policy:

“4.1.9 Returned IPv4 Addresses.

All IPv4 addresses returned to, recovered, or revoked by ARIN will be made available for registration and distribution in the ARIN region within 30 days.

Rationale:

Adopting this proposal will result in the clarification of the status of returned IPv4 addresses. IPv4 address resources should not sit idle due to lack of policy clarity.

Timetable for implementation: Immediately.”

The Chair called for discussion.

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

The AC discussed the PDP deadlines to determine if this proposal could be discussed at the PPM.

CA felt important to discuss at the PPM. The AC discussed the proposal’s wording, ‘within 30 days’. BD felt there would be a more robust discussion at the PPM if the wording remained in the proposal. He noted that changes could be made at a later point in time. OD was against the wording but felt the proposal should be discussed at the PPM, and agreed it could be edited later. It was acknowledged that ‘within 30 days’ might not be the right wording.

The Chair complimented ARIN staff on its practices to date regarding allocations of returned, reclaimed, and revoked space, and noted if there was an unusable block received that could not be distributed within 30 days, ARIN staff should not do it. JC pointed out however that, to the extent that proposal policy says ‘within 30 days’, it would limit the hold period. ARIN does receive bad blocks, and if there is a policy that states ARIN will distribute within 30 days, ARIN would have to issue those blocks.

HS pointed out that ‘will be made available’ means they are in a pool of addresses that are available, but ARIN doesn’t have to hand them out. JC replied that the proposal, as written, will cause ARIN to issue such space when there is no availability, and there are only bad blocks left.

RS stated that currently ARIN staff determines which blocks will be distributed, adhering to the current NRPM and coordinating with the community. He shared concern about the words ‘within 30 days’ being in the policy. He asked HS if she felt it was not the appropriate place for it, noting that in the future there will be circumstances where ARIN cannot process things in the normal fashion, due to the scarcity of space. He asked: Has something changed where we don’t believe staff will make the right decision that would require the hold time be specified in the policy? Or would something to the effect of, “if we can, it will be made available for use with no time specified” be adequate?

HS replied that the original point was to make legacy /8 available so that rather than ARIN receiving a voluntary return of a legacy block, and rather than holding it (due to the global policy not yet being in effect), if necessary it could be made available within 30 days because there is no other policy regarding voluntary returned legacy blocks. That being the original goal, ARIN would discuss which ones would be used. Ones returned are cleaner because they are voluntarily returned and have been used. When you change the scope to all returned, recovered or revoked, you run into problems of the quality of the space returned. HS stated she still thinks the text as written gives ARIN staff the discretion of when to issue it. If it is needed, it is available within 30 days. If all that’s left is a dirty block, and if 30 days has passed, ARIN can then make it available.

MH stated he needed to leave due to a scheduling conflict, at this time (4:37 pm EST).

BD suggested that ARIN have a statement saying that addresses are not guaranteed to be routable – regardless of the timespan. Whenever ARIN reissues space, it would be prudent to stipulate there could be problems, and those granted assignments run their own risk for complete routability and availability.

OD stated that as long as other address are available, it is a non-issue, but once there are no more available addresses, then they either get issued (and can or cannot be used); or, the address is held until cleaned and people go on a waiting list. It doesn’t make a difference if they get them before or after they are cleaned up. It’s better sooner rather than later, so that they can use the cleaned space; and work to clean the rest of it.

JC stated that there is a significant difference from legacy to ‘all space’ – all space implies space revoked and reclaimed, which is different than legacy space. But there are still hijackers and squatters on legacy space as well, and regardless, ARIN does give warning when it issues space. To the extent you want to give staff leeway regarding the timing involved, you need to have specific words stating there is leeway.

At present, ARIN practice is to return address space, and the community adopted a global policy that allows policies and strategies to designate the return of address space. This change is significant and, with all address space, it precludes the adopted global policy. It needs to be communicated to the community.

CA stated that she was open to a friendly amendment, if anyone wanted to make an one.

It was moved by RS, and seconded by BD, that the words “within 30 days” be stricken from the text, and to replace the word “will” with “may”.

SL felt it dangerous to wordsmith the text during this meeting, and suggested it be best to take it to the AC list and discuss it at length there. The Chair agreed.

ND requested the text be re-read with the amended language as proposed, and asked to hold further discussion until he could comment on it. The Chair agreed and read the text in full:

“4.1.9 Returned IPv4 Addresses.

All IPv4 addresses returned to, recovered, or revoked by ARIN may be made available for registration and distribution in the ARIN region.

Rationale:

Adopting this proposal will result in the clarification of the status of returned IPv4 addresses. IPv4 address resources should not sit idle due to lack of policy clarity.

Timetable for implementation: Immediately.”

ND then stated that within the current ARIN Registration Serviced Agreement (RSA), Section 6 states that address space revoked as a result of non-payment is held for 6 months before distribution. He noted this as a similarity to the context of the discussion, relevant to the discussion.

OD stated he supported either half of the proposed amendment, but not the whole amendment. SL asked RS what he thought this amendment would do. RS stated it keeps ARIN from waiting on a global policy that may or may not be ratified.

JC stated at this point the return, or non-return, of space is a matter for the ARIN Board to instruct to staff. The practice is to return space. If adopted, this states we may use it in the ARIN region, but we already knew we could do that. If it’s smaller than /8, IANA can’t do much with it, and we would use it in the ARIN region. If this passes, what does this policy instruct ARIN to do differently? CA replied that all legacy space returned is available to the ARIN region so as not be ‘stuck’.

SL opposed the amendment stating he did not like the original idea, but as this amendment would make it a no-op, he was against it.

The Chair called for a roll call vote on the amended text.

The motion to amend the text failed with 10 against, and 1 abstention (RS) via roll call. RS stated he acknowledged his amendment does turn the proposal into a no-op, more or less, hence his abstention.

The Chair stated that per the PDP the AC has until March 7 to edit the text. He stated the shepherds, CA and CG, will work on the edits and send the text to the AC’s list. He suggested staff then send the AC a doodle poll to gauge their consensus of the revisions.

SL stated the AC has not discussed whether it is a good idea to restrict staff to return space to IANA, however he would vote in favor of this proposal to go forward to the PPM so the community can weigh in on it.

DA stated he was against pushing this proposal forward to the PPM for discussion. He stated it flies in face of what we did with Draft Policy ARIN-2009-3 (Global Proposal): Allocation of Ipv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries, and what is on the table does not need to be rushed to the PPM. It can be discussed, but should not be put up for adoption.

SL stated that DA had a good point and asked if the AC felt this was an urgent matter; and, could it wait until the October PPM? BD also pointed out that JC had stated that current practice does address this issue. BD didn’t feel it needed to be rushed.

OD disagreed and felt there was time between now and March 7 to edit the language. He agreed that it does fly in the face of the expectations of Draft Policy 2009-3, but wanted to put it to the community sooner rather than later. He felt it better to announce any intent, and did feel a sense of urgency on the matter.

CG stated that, to expand on OD’s comment, the intent is for this to act as wake-up call to other regions to act on the global policy.

CA stated she had additional text to send out after this meeting to the AC’s list, and felt it an answer to what has been discussed.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘4.1.9 Returned IPv4 Address’, selects it as a Draft Policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.”

The motion to select the original text as a draft policy carried via roll call with 10 in favor, and 1 against (DA).

12. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. The Chair stated that due to the lateness of submission, policy proposals 132, 133 and 134 would not be presented as draft policies at the PPM. JC pointed out that these proposals reference other registries. ARIN has MOUs in place with the NRO and with ICANN and an adopted global policy regarding RIRs with non over-lapping service regions (ICP II). These policies will need to be considered in light of the global policies already adopted. ARIN is reviewing the new policy proposals, but they may need to be looked at globally.

The Chair called for any other business items.

BD brought up the recent request on PPML for the AC to post statements after their meetings explaining why they took the actions they took on proposals (abandonment, etc.). BD felt the AC could draft possible text for consideration, review it, and incorporate it going forward. He felt that when the AC announces its actions, there should be a standard incorporation in what is sent to the PPML, to state actions taken in the previous AC meeting, and thanking all involved in the process. SL agreed.

The Chair stated this could be started immediately. He asked EB, as the one who posts the announcements, if this was the case. EB replied it would not be a problem.

CG stated this is not a bad idea, but his feeling from the PPML post was that they wanted specifics, and not a blanket statement. The Chair replied it was the shepherd’s responsibility to craft a statement, especially when a proposal is abandoned; and, this should accompany the action statement that staff sends out. It is incumbent upon each AC member performing shepherding duties.

CG reiterated to make sure, as shepherds, we are stating more detail and make sure the author and supporters understand why.

JC noted that there is a sentence in the forthcoming revised PDP that the AC shall explain to the community its actions, and the pros and cons and understanding of why they made their decision. It is necessary, and needs to go to the list because only communicating to the author will still leave the community in the dark. The most important thing is for the AC to explain the action they took. The Chair agreed that the shepherds should always explain their decisions.

The Chair called for any other business items.

CA stated she sent the revised text for proposal 4.1.9 to the AC’s list. The Chair stated that ARIN staff needs feedback by close of business on Tuesday, February 22nd, in order to post it to the PPML.

16. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:13 p.m. EST. CA moved to adjourn and this was seconded by BD. The Chair adjourned the meeting with no objections.