Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 14 October 2011 [Archived]

Philadelphia, PA

Advisory Council Attendees:

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

Minute Taker

• Einar Bohlin

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Staff Attorney
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis, COO
• Leslie Nobile (LN), Director, Registration Services

Counsel:

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

ARIN Board of Trustees

• Paul Andersen
• Paul Vixie

Regrets:

• Dan Alexander, Rob Seastrom

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:35 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for comments. The Chair added items on IPv6 Outreach and Head Table Suggestion, to item 16, under ‘Any Other Business’.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of September 15, 2011, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers

SL presented the revised text to the AC.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVIII 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 ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion.

MH moved to postpone the draft policy indefinitely. CM seconded the motion.

The Chair called for discussion. CG stated it would be better to discuss the original motion. BS reviewed the poll counts. There was no count performed for the text as written. SL reviewed the Public Policy Meeting (PPM) poll questions.

CA stated that she was against the motion to postpone indefinitely, pointing out that it was discussed 6 months ago at the ARIN PPM in San Juan. At that time, the AC was at the same point with this same proposal; and, with the same motion to postpone indefinitely. She did not believe that postponing indefinitely was a way to move forward. OD and SH agreed.

MH noted that the text change is significant, stating it is not what the community has requested. He stated it needs more work, discussion on the list, and presentation at the next meeting.

CM preferred the text before the revision. MH stated he would like to withdraw the motion to postpone.

The Chair called for objections. There were none. The motion to postpone was withdrawn.

The AC discussed the following text to be added to the draft policy:

“Organizations are ineligible to provide addresses via transfer if they have received IPv4 addresses directly from ARIN in the previous X months, and may not receive addresses directly from ARIN for Y months thereafter.”

OD moved to fill in the ‘x’ and ‘y’ blanks in the text with the values of ‘6’ and ‘12’ respectively. CG seconded the motion.

The Chair called for discussion. HS stated she would like ‘x’ to be longer than 6 months. Space should be held for a longer period of time, per the request for the space. She suggested 12 or 24 months for ‘x’.

CA suggested that the addition of this text be held for a follow-on proposal. CM and MH agreed. MC asked if the community would accept it without this text. OD stated he could not support the draft policy without this text.

CG suggested voting on the 6/12 revisions. CM agreed.

HS noted that ARIN still has address space and the “wash, rinse, repeat” cycle of obtaining space and then immediately transferring that space could become a problem. The text to requiring holding space for x months is needed.

The President cited the ARIN Bylaws language regarding the President’s role as an ex-officio non-voting member of the Advisory Council, and thus entitled to express his perspective on the merits of policy changes just as any other AC member. He further noted that perfect policy was the enemy of good policy, and that ARIN holding off for a ‘perfect’ policy in this area may not be in interest of the community. While this policy could create potential loopholes, if that actually began to happen, it would be relatively easy for the staff to detect this and bring it to the Board’s attention; noting that the Board has the ability to suspend any policy that is problematic.

The Chair called for roll call vote to amend the text by filling in blanks with the values of 6 and 12 respectively.

The vote failed with 3 in favor (SL, MC, OD) and 10 against (CA, BD, DF, CG, MH, SH, CM, BS, HS, JS).

MH suggested removing the x/y sentence. BD and CG agreed. OD stated he could not support the policy without a safety valve. Discussion ensued regarding the order in which to call the motions. It was determined that motions were being called in the correct order.

MH moved to remove the x/y sentence. SL seconded the motion.

The Chair called for discussion. MH noted that the ARIN Board has the Emergency Policy Development Process (PDP). DF noted that the x/y text is what derailed the in-region proposal.

The Chair asked for a roll call vote to remove the x/y sentence.

The motion carried with 11 in favor (SL, CA, MC, BD, DF, CG, MH, SH, CM, BS, JS), and 2 against (OD, HS).

The Chair reminded everyone that the motion to move Draft Policy 2011-1 to last call was still on the table, and called for discussion.

CG noted that implementation due to DNS issues may take some time. A safety valve proposal could be in place before implementation of the policy. MH agreed, noting that the community wants an inter-RIR process, but stated he is not certain this is the right text.

DF suggested an extended last call.

CM and BD spoke about the term “compatible”, noting that it is not defined. BD said he was supportive of removing the word.

The President pointed out that staff had noted the ambiguity in its review, and stated how they would implement the policy. “Compatible” now has a clearer meaning in this revised text based on the prior sentence. Reviewing the text, the President stated that the other RIR must have a needs-based policy that requires the organization to actually demonstrate its need to the RIR, in order for the policy to be considered “compatible”.

MH noted this was another dramatic change to the text. He considered the contentiousness of this discussion to mean that the draft policy should not go to last call. He noted that AC meetings should not be used for re-writing text. DF stated that BD had posted the text and asked for feedback on the calls several months ago.

SL stated that he took the text of 2011-1 and revised it for the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). CM noted that the word “compatible” is in the staff assessment. The President stated that this text is clearer.

OD noted that the text was removed regarding RIRs having to agree to the transfer. He noted that there could be other reasons for RIRs not agreeing, than having a needs-based policy.

SL suggested returning the phrase “agree to the transfer and” to the text. The Chair called for any objections. There were none.

The Chair pointed out there is time for small revisions during last call. MH noted that the questions at the PPM were asked in a way to indicate if the community wanted “an” inter-RIR process or not (as shown in BD’s slides) and that the text being sent to last call was not discussed, or presented, at the PPM. BS agreed.

DF moved to send to the amended text to an extended last call through 16 November 2011. BD seconded the motion.

The Chair called for any objections. MH stated he did not support the motion, considering that this policy as not ready for last call.

Hearing no further comments, the Chair called for a roll call vote to send Draft Policy 2011-1, as amended, to an extended last call through 16 November 2011.

The motion carried with 10 in favor, (SL, CA, MC, BD, OD, DF, CG, SH, CM, JS) and 3 against (MH, BS, HS).

BD volunteered to craft the explanation for the community regarding amended text, and asked the other AC members for assistance.

5. ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement

CG stated he would send revised text to the AC’s list for discussion. This will stay on the AC’s docket.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVIII 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 ARIN-2011-8: Combined M&A and Specified Transfers and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

7. ARIN-2011-9: Global Policy for Post-Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVIII 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 ARIN-2011-9: Global Policy for Post-Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. MH stated that he did not like the proposal, but considered it not harmful. CG agreed.

CA supported the motion, noting that the AC took a stand with the first global policy proposal. The AC revised the text of that first proposal. This proposal has none of the objectionable material that was present in that first global proposal.

OD agreed and stated that he hoped that space would be returned to the IANA. It is harmful for some regions to have space when others do not.

The motion carried via roll call with 12 in favor (SL, CA, MC, BD, OD, DF, CG, SH, CM, BS, HS, JS) and 1 against (MH).

8. ARIN-2011-10: Remove Single Aggregate Requirement from Specified Transfer

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVIII 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 ARIN-2011-10: Remove Single Aggregate Requirement from Specified Transfer and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL noted this was well supported at the PPM.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

9. ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVIII 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 ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. CM noted that this was supported at the PPM. CG said that there was no mandate and that many in the room did not raise their hands. He noted that there is an issue with slow start, and stated that he was against the motion.

HS stated that the community does not understand the implications. MH stated that he would support it if “slow start” were defined.

DF noted that there was some confusion, and that this was not ready for last call. There were too many proposals that might be going to last call on NRPM section 8.3 at the same time. He considered that this one could wait.

The Chair noted that it could be kept on the AC’s docket for more work if it does not go to last call.

OD stated that this might be needed when ARIN is out of address space. This might need a trigger for implementation.

The Chair called for any objections to withdrawing the motion.

There were no objections.

The Chair stated that 2011-11 would remain on the AC’s docket.

10. ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 Months

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVIII 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 ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 Months and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion.

BD left the meeting at this time (2:45 pm).

MH stated he would like to withdraw the motion, noting that the edits required to put the text into the NRPM were more difficult than expected. The Chair called for any objections. There were no objections.

The motion was withdrawn. The Chair stated that 2011-12 would remain on the AC’s docket.

11. ARIN-2011-13: IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVIII 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 ARIN-2011-13: IPv4 Number Resources for Use Within Region. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD noted the results of the PPML and PPM discussions. CA pointed out that the discussions were worthwhile. The Chair agreed.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

BS volunteered to provide the justification statement for the community on abandonment.

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

It was noted that this is still on the AC’s docket.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Correct Erroneous Syntax in NRPM 8.3.’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated that a clear mandate came from the community, and this proposal is no longer relevant.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

14. ARIN-prop-157: Section 8.3 Simplification

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Section 8.3 Simplification’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. MH stated that ASNs are changing hands in the community, and Whois is not being updated. Low number and vanity ASNs are being sought; and, they should be allowed to be updated. MH said he was amenable to revising the text.

DF agreed that ASNs need to be transferable, perhaps not IPv6. The issue is worth discussing. SL noted that without the staff Clarity & Understanding report, he has not worked on this. He was not in favor of abandonment.

CM said that there is a lot of work being done on Section 8.3 at this time.

The motion to abandon failed via roll call with 12 against (SL, CA, MC, DF, CG, MH, SH, CM, BS, HS, JS) and one in favor (OD).

The Chair stated that the proposal would be added to the AC’s docket.

15. ARIN-prop-158: Clarify Multiple Discrete Networks Policy

The Chair stated that unless there were any objections, this proposal would be reviewed at the next AC meeting. There were no objections.

16. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

First AC Meeting of 2012

The Chair reminded the Council that their first meeting of 2012 will be face-to-face and held on Friday, January 20, 2012 at the Hyatt Reston Town Centre, Reston, VA. An informal dinner, for those who can attend, will be held on Thursday evening. Location/time to be determined. ARIN Staff will be contacting AC members to arrange travel in the coming weeks.

IPv6 Outreach

The President stated that the proposed ARIN budget for 2012 contains a budget line for outreach, including “ARIN on the Road” events, but the trade shows will be cut back. The budget is currently under review by the ARIN Financial Committee.

CG expressed that it would be horrible for ARIN outreach to disappear at this time. He stated that people come to the ARIN booth for other things. ARIN has become a group of individuals vs. a machine. BS agreed that the outreach has helped ARIN’s profile in the community. The President stated that AC members could, as individuals, provide feedback to the ARIN Treasurer and Board. SL asked about policy discussion at the ARIN on the Road events, and AC attendance. The President stated that the Board wants the ARIN’s outreach events to be cost effective. HS noted that AC members were asked to go to tradeshows; and, considered that the level of awareness has been effectively raised. The Chair stated the need to keep momentum on IPv6 outreach. OD suggested increasing outreach to the consumer electronics and games areas.

ARIN PPM Head Table Suggestion

MH suggested that, being at the head table, the AC be allowed to ask questions of people at the microphones (without getting in queue). The President stated he was open to improvements at the head table. HS suggested having both policy shepherds at the head table when a proposal is presented. OD noted it is sometimes easier to get a microphone at the floor. The President stated he would take this item under consideration.

Noting this meeting’s discussion of 2011-1, BS considered that the AC does not get together in the same room often enough. He asked if other AC members, and ARIN, would be amenable to a workshop before PPMS for policy development, for word-smithing. OD stated that was a good idea, but that the word-smithing for 2011-1 came from the PPM. DF agreed.

SH stated that she would not have the time. CA suggested to conduct a workshop via WebEx. CM offered Google office space. CG noted the timing issue, stating that there is the AC meeting in January. MH could not get approval from employer. HS noted that the AC meeting was intentionally moved to the third day of each month so that members could talk to authors and others and work on the proposals. She suggested an AC breakfast on Friday.

The President suggested that the AC hold a teleconference the week after the PPM for the last calls. SL noted that an interactive text session before the text freeze could prove valuable. HS reminded the AC to mail their suggested motions to the list before the AC’s meeting, as this was helpful.

New ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP)

The Chair pointed out that AC members needed to review the proposed revised PDP. The President stated that the proposed PDP would allow for gauging support via online polls in lieu of Public Policy Meetings. He noted that there is consideration to go to one PPM per year starting in 2015.

17. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 3:49 p.m. EDT. SH moved to adjourn, seconded by CA. The meeting adjourned with no objections.