Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 August 2011 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Scott Leibrand, Vice Chair (SL)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Marty Hannigan (MH)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Chris Grundemann (CG)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Chris Morrow (CM)
• Bill Sandiford (BS)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)

Minute Taker

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Staff Attorney
• Einar Bohlin (EB), Policy Analyst
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis (ND), COO
• Leslie Nobile (LN), Director, Registration Services

Counsel:

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Regrets:

• Dan Alexander, Marc Crandall, Bill Darte

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

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

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of July 18, 2011, as written.”

The Chair called for any comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

SL stated that edits should be made per the staff and legal assessment. The Chair stated that any changes could still be made prior to the deadline of September 7th.

RS asked if the will changes make it likely to pass, or just removes ambiguity. SL stated it was clearer, less ambiguous and more effective. He could not say if these changes made it more likely to pass. The Chair noted it needed more work. DF suggested posting it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML).

The Chair tasked the shepherds to coordinate.

Counsel joined at this time (4:14 pm EDT).

5. ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement

CG stated this was ready to be discussed at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting (PPM) in October. The Chair pointed out that legal comments were recently received, and wanted to be sure CG had seen them. SL stated that they were editorial, but did not substantially change the policy. CG agreed but stated he would update the policy text based on Counsel’s recommendations. He stated he would send this to the AC’s list to ensure there was review. The Chair reiterated the deadline of September 7th.

The President noted that any changes made between September 7th and September 30th should only be clarifications – no new approaches – per ARIN’s Policy Development Process (PDP).

6. ARIN-2011-8: Combined M&A and Specified Transfers

SL stated this was ready to be discussed at the ARIN PPM in October.

BS joined at this time (4:18 pm EDT).

7. ARIN-Prop-137: Global Policy for Post-Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “Global Policy for Post-Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA”, 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 any comments. DF stated that this needed to be discussed at the PPM. He noted that: it has been adopted by APNIC and LACNIC; was in last call in AFRINIC; and, was up for discussion at the next RIPE meeting in November. He considered it needed to have a good faith discussion at the ARIN PPM. The Chair called for any disagreements. OD stated that it might conflict 2011-5, as written. DF stated he would be at the upcoming APNIC meeting and would discuss it with the authors. OD stated he too would be at the APNIC meeting. RS suggested that OD to send his thoughts to ARIN Counsel. OD agreed. The Chair requested OD send it to the AC’s list as well.

The motion carried with 11 in favor (CA, OD, DF, CG, SH, SL, CM, BS, HS, RS, JS), and 1 against (MH).

8. ARIN-Prop-144: Remove Single Aggregate Requirement from Specified Transfer

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “Remove Single Aggregate Requirement from Specified Transfer”, 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 any comments. SL stated that this has been discussed a lot, and deserves to go to the PPM. He stated it was a good idea to align policy with the reality of what type of transfers are being requested. OD stated he was in favor of the motion, opposed the text because there was overwhelming support behind the single aggregate safeguard and to make it work, not to eliminate it.

The motion carried unanimously.

The Chair stated item 15 would be discussed at this time, as BS needed to leave the meeting shortly.

15. ARIN-prop-155: IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region,’ 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 any comments. CG considered this an issue that needed to be discussed and supported the motion. SL stated that he opposed the text as it was too absolute, but supported the motion. The Chair stated community guidance was needed, to obtain good feedback and taking it to the PPM was a good idea. He stated that discussion on the PPML prior to the PPM was important and would be beneficial. DF noted that the staff and legal assessment was distributed to the AC’s list this morning.

The motion carried with 10 in favor (CA, DF, CG, SH, SL, CM, BS, HS, RS, JS), and 2 against (OD, MH).

BS left the call at this time (4:29 pm EDT).

9. ARIN-Prop-146: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers

CM asked to pass over this item, as he was experiencing technical difficulties on the teleconference and was working on correcting the problem. The Chair agreed to address this item later in the meeting.

10. ARIN-Prop-147: Set Transfer Need to 24 Months and Clarify Exception

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Set Transfer Need to 24 Months and Clarify Exception’", 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 any comments. MH asked if the timeframe made a difference (i.e., 24 versus 36 months) and asked for any opinions. Counsel stated that incrementally, 12 months is too short. He did not know if 24 or 36 months would be the ‘right’ amount of time, however 24 months was better than 12 months. He stated that there are obviously other factors that the AC needed to balance, and 24 months seemed to be the best timeframe. The President stated that ARIN expects that allowing 12 months would be very difficult for many to satisfy. By the time someone needed it and found the resources, negotiated it, submitted the paperwork, and finalized the transfer, with only 12 months allowed, they would already be looking to restart the whole cycle almost immediately.

The Chair stated that if the community wants more time, ARIN would accommodate that. OD asked, “How much do we want to permit fiction”? He stated he preferred 18 months, but would oppose 36 months. The President stated that the rate is set by past history – not forward looking plans – and the question is whether or not ARIN wanted to tell people that most transfers may not be appropriate unless they are prepared to take less space than they planned. He stated that he did not advocate a particular answer, but noted for the AC that in allowing only 12 months, the need does not match what some parties have been trying to transfer, and greater than 12 months may work in those cases. He considered the community should discuss the matter.

The motion carried with 10 in favor (CA, DF, CG, MH, SH, SL, CM, HS, RS, JS), and 1 against (OD).

The Chair stated the agenda would resume at item 9 at this time, as CM was now ready.

9. ARIN-Prop-146: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “Clarify Justified Need for Transfers”, 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 any comments. SL stated that the edits clarify the language, and that he supported the motion.

The motion carried unanimously.

11. ARIN-Prop-149: Improved Transparency for Directed Transfers

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Improved Transparency for Directed Transfers’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for any comments. HS stated that the text instructs staff to publish a list. This should be should be part of ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP). She stated that if staff needed information, they should ask the community through the ACSP process.

OD, the author, stated that prior to submitting this proposal, he asked ARIN staff if this could be accomplished through the ACSP. He stated that staff replied that it would require policy because the list may contain proprietary data. OD pointed out that the President had stated, after the proposal was submitted, that pieces would be preferable as policy, and that there was no objection to putting through the ACSP, if it can be done there and if the community supports it. OD further stated that if this item requires policy, then he opposed abandoning it.

RS stated it was not a good policy. He considered that the transparency burden makes it ‘weird’ as opposed to regular allocations. He stated he would e-mail his thoughts to the list.

The President admitted that he had overlooked something in the email he had sent to the AC. He stated that if one needed certain things published, it would be better off in policy. If it were more discretionary, then the ACSP would be the way to handle it. It is true that when one publishes this level of detail - the results of individual requests - ARIN may not be publishing the technical justification, but ARIN would still be providing detail that exceeds other allocations. When OD asked about this months ago, ARIN stated that if the community objects to publishing, for privacy reasons, it would be better to have it written in policy. If it ends up in policy, ARIN would abide by the policy. If it ends up going through the ASCP, ARIN staff would have to independently determine the right course of action.

The Chair stated the motion is on the table to abandon, and reiterated that at this time, no one can say if it can be done through the ACSP.

DF stated he was against the motion. He considered it should be taken to the PPM to get the community’s feedback. If there were not a lot of issues regarding privacy, it could then be abandoned. He considered this needed to be addressed at the PPM.

RS suggested it could also be brought up during the Open Policy Hour at the PPM. MH stated that he recalled a similar discussion at a previous ARIN PPM that was held in Atlanta. He stated he recalled that the general consensus was against it. He considered this topic redundant and supported the motion to abandon it.

OD stated that the proposal does not advocate publishing anything that is not already available in the WHOIS, and the subscription available to ARIN registration services that is posted daily. The proposal aggregates that information in a more easily analyzed format.

The President agreed that OD was correct. It is the format, not the information. He noted that making the information available separately from the existing Whois would make it more readily available, and might not match community expectations. He reiterated that if it were in policy, ARIN would implement it. Otherwise, ARIN would go with the ACSP.

HS pointed out that ARIN publishes many lists (address space, allocations, etc.) not mandated by Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). She suggested abandoning the proposal because she did not believe it belongs in the NRPM. With regard to WHOIS data, people are required to maintain it and publish it, and that does belongs in the NRPM. She considered this proposal to be a different matter.

The motion to abandon carried with 8 in favor (CA, CG, MH, SH, CM, HS, RS, JS), 2 against (OD, DF), and 1 abstention (SL).

12. ARIN-Prop-151: Limiting Needs Requirements for IPv4 Transfers

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Limiting Needs Requirements for IPv4 Transfers’, 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 any comments. DF stated that the text was sent to the AC’s list. He would ensure it was updated on the Wiki. The Chair clarified that it was text that the AC reviewed. He asked that ARIN staff re-review the staff assessment for the changes that were made.

DF stated that he did not support the proposal for final adoption, but wanted to see it discussed at the ARIN PPM. MH was not comfortable vote on the motion, as the proposal text did not have updates from the staff and legal assessment.

DF clarified that the edit to be made is in regard to the fact that changes to ARIN’s Registration Services Agreement (RSA) do not belong in policy. That language would be removed from the proposal. Nothing else would change in the proposal text.

The Chair pointed out to the AC that if they did not vote on the proposal at this time, the proposal would not be forwarded to discussion at the ARIN PPM. He stated that staff and Counsel would review any changes to the text.

The President clarified and apologized that the AC did not have the current staff and legal assessment to the current text. He suggested the AC vote on the proposal if they felt it worth discussing at the PPM. He apologized for the timing error.

MH acknowledged that it was not an intentional error. He pointed out that it brings to light a procedural issue that happens when a proposal is updated during staff and legal assessment. He stated his comments are directed to the issue of correcting the procedure. He stated he could not vote on the proposal, if it was not up-to-date.
The President responded that the process revision is related to the PDP revisions that are being addressed.

OD stated that he noted issues with the proposal and did not consider it ready. He stated that the exemption to Section 12 did not have the /12 limitation, or any limit. It was a blanket exemption allowing many addresses to be removed from scrutiny. He opposed the motion.

The motion to select the proposal as a draft policy failed with 8 against (CA, OD, CG, SH, CM, HS, RS, JS), 2 in favor (SL, DF), and 1 abstention (MH).

The Chair stated this proposal could be left on the AC’s docket; and, staff would let the community know that it could be petitioned to take it to the PPM. Alternatively, the AC could move to abandon it.

OD moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text ‘Limiting Needs Requirements for IPv4 Transfers’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for a second to the motion. There were no comments.

The Chair stated this proposal would remain on the AC’s docket and staff would apprise the community of the ability to petition.

13. ARIN-Prop-152: RSA Modification Limits

It was moved by CM, and seconded by MH, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text ‘RSA Modification Limits,‘abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for any comments. SL stated he was in support of the motion.

The motion carried with 10 in favor (CA, DF, CG, MH, SH, SL, CM, HS, RS, JS), and 1 abstention (OD).

14. ARIN-Prop-153: Correct Erroneous Syntax in NRPM 8.3

CA stated that after reading comments received, she considered this proposal not ready. She stated she would not make a motion so that the proposal could remain on the AC’s docket.

SL stated that he considered this proposal an important counterpoint for the single aggregate requirements proposal, which would be discussed at the PPM. He suggested this proposal be edited so that it could also be discussed at the PPM. He opposed the proposal, but stated it needed to be brought to the community at the PPM. The Chair pointed out that the proposal could be presented by petition at the PPM. SL replied that the considered the AC would be remiss in not bringing to the PPM.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Correct Erroneous Syntax in NRPM 8.3,’ 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. OD agreed with SL and stated that the proposal could be updated in time for the PPM.

The motion failed with 7 against (CA, CG, MH, SH, CM, HS, JS), and 4 in favor (SL, OD, DF, RS).

The Chair stated this proposal could be left on the AC’s docket; and, staff would let the community know that it could be petitioned to take it to the PPM. Alternatively, the AC could move to abandon it. No further motions were made.

CA requested suggestions to the text for revisions. OD volunteered to assist.

15. ARIN-prop-155: IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region

Discussed previously.

16. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items. He reminded the AC that nominations were now open and that the ARIN Fellowship was open for applications.

17. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5: 12 p.m. EDT. CA moved to adjourn, seconded by OD. The meeting adjourned with no objections.