Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 May 2012 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair
• Scott Leibrand, Vice Chair (SL)
• Dan Alexander (DA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Kevin Blumberg (KB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Chris Grundemann (CG)
• Marty Hannigan (MH)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Chris Morrow (CM)
• Bill Sandiford (BS)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)

Minute Taker

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
• Einar Bohlin, Sr. Policy Analyst (EB)
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis, COO

Counsel:

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Regrets:

• Owen DeLong

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:20 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted. It was noted that OD and Leslie Nobile would attempt to join, but given they were attending AfriNIC’s Public Policy Meeting, it may not be possible.

2. Agenda Review

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

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 25 April 2012, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no objections.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. ARIN-2012-1: Clarifying Requirements for IPv4 Transfers

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, supports ARIN-2012-1: Clarifying Requirements for IPv4 Transfers and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

The Chair called for discussion. DA stated that there were statements of support during last call. He was comfortable with the motion. SL agreed. DF stated that he supported motion, although he had reservations about the reciprocity language.

The motion carried with 10 in favor (DA, CA, KB, DF, CG, SH, SL, CM, RS, JS), and 1 against (MH) via roll call.

5. ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement

CA stated that she did not have an update at this time. HS was currently unavailable to report on any updates. CA stated this has been kept on the AC’s docket, as the text needs work. The Chair stated he would ask HS if she had any further comments, should she become available to join this teleconference.

6. ARIN-2012-3: ASN Transfers

SL stated that he had sent email to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) for support. He was undecided whether it should be forwarded to the ARIN Board, based on responses received during the ARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting (PPM) and the last call period. He called for the AC’s thoughts. The Chair stated that a motion should be made, followed with any further discussion.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIX Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, supports ARIN-2012-3: ASN Transfers and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

The Chair called for discussion. RS reiterated what he had also posted to the PPML: this policy, or any other policy, is not the last word in transfers. He believed that the policy could be improved and that having this policy moved forward would be better than having no policy in place. He expressed desire to work with anyone who would like to refine this policy further on a policy template.

CG agreed stating that at this point, based on Counsel’s remarks, ARIN runs a greater risk not having this policy than having it in place. He believed it best to maintain proper protections rather than trying to limit transfers and supported the motion.

DA stated he was against the motion. He considered the actual proposal went beyond the topic of the proposal itself regarding transfers and touches on the AC making decisions on technical need, what the community may want, and consensus. He believed that it had not met consensus. He considered how this would play in Internet governance, and stated this is new ground and needs more discussion.

KB stated he was in support of the proposal but echo DA’s concerns and the overall consensus of the community. His concern was that there is a vocal minority against it and overall support for it; however, he did not believe it was well enough explained to the community. He suggested a reworking of the policy to be put forth at the next ARIN PPM in October to gain greater consensus but noting it would delay moving it forward.

The motion carried with 10 in favor (CA, KB, DF, CG, MH, SH, SL, CM, RS, JS), and 1 against (DA) via roll call.

7. ARIN-Prop-166: Clarify /29 Assignment Identification Requirement

CG stated he spoke with the author who was open to idea of using the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) to suggest an order of precedence for staff’s inquiries into address utilization, and that he would drop support for this proposal, if useful.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Clarify /29 Assignment Identification Requirement’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. CG stated that the current text bars staff from asking personal identifying information (PII) and that is not something he wanted to see happen. He believed the AC owed it to the community to discuss the matter more fully.

The President stated that the AC should consider the current policy to require reassignment information, and while the author suggested exploring other methods to do that, no new methods for verification of utilization were provided. ARIN needs the reassignment information to know what was used and what wasn’t in order to verify. If this proposal becomes suggestion without changes to the policy requiring verification of utilization, then any reassignments without supporting detail will be treated as invalid. A policy change is needed if staff is going to accept reassignments that are not backed up by detailed information. He added that there is a related problem with policy change: ARIN is not supposed to ‘hide’ procedures - they must be clear and open. ARIN will need to tell people – you either do or do not have to supply PII information. It needs to be clear to the community up front.

RS stated that the author’s goal was unclear to him. He surmised the goal was to make it more difficult to fraudulently get space, but was uncertain. He pondered that if the author is trying to put structure on not gaming the system, impossible does not work and putting more constraints on what staff can ask for is not beneficial. RS stated he is in favor of accepting the text, not the least because he wanted to be careful to give anything the author writes more than a fair consideration, as the AC has abandoned its share of his proposals in past. He believed the AC needed to work on a more cogent mission statement from the author on what he wants to accomplish with the proposal.

CG stated that he believed the original text was more along lines of what the author wanted, but that it was rejected as procedural, not operational. He suggested that if the AC takes that to the ACSP, the proposal could be abandoned, with PII as the last resort. He understood that PII is asked for when staff needs to identify items. This text may be close to what the author wants.

The President explained that if someone provides reassignment information with no contact data, ARIN will request more information. The present forms request that all reassignment data is supplied by default. There has been no alternative proposed to verify utilization.

SL stated noted one other aspect is that ARIN will review retention practices with regard to PII. He supported the motion and stated that any changes will dictate what happens.

CM asked how useful the data is to ARIN. As an example, if an ISP has 1.5 million customers and provides phone numbers and addresses, ARIN would not call all of those people. ARIN will not use the data, so why ask for it?

The President responded that it is useful, as ISPs showing utilization as we approach run-out are inclined to overstate their utilization. The vast majority of assignments are not personal dedicated IP assignments, but are organizational assignments, and the need to supply the detailed information (which ARIN does spot check) supports fair and equitable IP management.

KB stated he supported the motion, as it was worth looking at, but did not support in what it was obtaining as ARIN nears IPv4 rundown. He believed that ARIN having the correct ability to deal with verification and fraud is crucial. However, he was unsure, as written, that this was a good policy. He believed the AC should look at it further.

HS and BS joined at this time (4:42 pm EDT).

The motion carried with 10 in favor (DA, KB, DF, CG, MH, SH, SL, CM, RS, JS), 1 against (CA), and 2 abstentions (BS, HS) via roll call.

BS and HS stated they were abstaining due to missing the discussion on this item.

The Chair asked HS if she had any updates on agenda item 5. ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement. HS reiterated CA’s comments that there was no update at this time, and that it remained on the AC’s docket as the text needed to be revised.

8. ARIN-Prop-167: Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multi-homers

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multi-homers’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. CA stated that she had posted a comment to the AC’s mailing list. There was much discussion on the PPML, with regard to it being hard for the ’little guys’ to renumber. She believed this should be further discussed, and was surprised to see how many on the PPML were against the proposal, since it had been discussed many times at other meetings. SL agreed and felt the proposal worthwhile to have on the AC’s docket.

The motion carried with 12 in favor (DA, CA, DF, CG, MH, SL, CM, BS, HS, RS, JS), 1 against (SH), and 1 abstention (KB) via roll call.

KB stated he abstained due to conflict of interest.

9. ARIN-Prop-168: Promote 4-Byte ASN Usage

DF stated that the AC needs the clarity and understanding and would like to review that before voting. He requested this proposal be addressed on the AC’s June teleconference. Chair agreed, and called for any objections. There were no objections.

10. ARIN-Prop-169: Clean-up IPv6 Section 6.5.7

The President stated that members of the AC asked if this could be dealt with as an administrative update. He explained that if the change did not affect policy, and removes clarifying text, the AC can state such and ask staff to seek the consent of the Board to change the Number Resource Policy Manual. He stated it was the AC’s decision.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Clean-up IPv6 Section 6.5.7’, considers it as an administrative update and asks the ARIN Staff to seek the consent of the ARIN Board to process accordingly.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF asked if a petition statement to the community should be sent since the proposal was being ‘abandoned’ essentially. The answer was yes, with an explanation as to why this motion was made.

SL stated that before this motion was voted upon he asked if any AC members were opposed to handling it this way. The President stated that if anyone had objections, to please say so, as the AC would need to determine if a different motion needed to be made.

BD joined at this time (5:01 pm EDT).

There were no objections.

The motion carried with 12 in favor, (DA, CA, KB, DF, CG, SH, CM, BS, HS, RS, JS), 1 against (MH), and 1 abstention (BD) via roll call.

BD stated he abstained due to missing the discussion on this item.

DF expressed concern over the vote against, stating that SL had specifically requested to discuss the matter further if anyone was opposed, and no one spoke up. He asked if it were appropriate to call for reconsideration. He stated he was unhappy as to how the vote turned out. MH explained that over the years, numerous times, he has opposed not taking issues to public policy meetings. Most recently he opposed this action, and did not feel it necessary to state “+1 or -1”.

SL accepted the explanation, but stated that if MH would like to argue the case to not move forward with this proposal, the AC can make a motion to reconsider. MH replied it was not effective use of time, and the AC should continue with the agenda. There were no objections.

11. Improve Communications Group (IC) Report

IC members: KB, BD, OD, CG.
KB stated there was no update at this time, but would have a report at the AC’s June teleconference.

12. Changes to the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM)

The President stated the revised Policy Development Process (PDP) would be sent to the community for consultation and that the AC had expressed that they were comfortable with this version. He stated that the AC’s feedback had been instrumental, that the PDP was updated to reflect their comments, and that he could accept final comments up until midnight on Sunday, May 20th. He noted that comments would be welcome after that time, but wanted the AC to have the very first look since they needed to operate by these procedures. He stated that the revised version was sent to the AC’s mailing list a few hours ago.

ND noted that this item on the agenda referred to the administrative change to number resources used in-region. He stated that Leslie Nobile had supplied the change to the AC on May 2.

SL stated that there was discussion and concern about whether an administrative change could be done given the language proposed. SL said that there was feedback on the AC’s mailing list regarding language that better matched existing procedures, however, currently no response has been received from staff.

The President stated that it would be remanded to staff. He stated that any administrative change should reflect current practice. There should be an accurate reflection of current operations. He stated that a revised, suggested administrative update would be forthcoming for AC consideration.

13. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

AC Members and Potential Conflicts of Interest (COI)

The President stated since January 2012, the AC has dealt with a number of policies that have implications with regard to what could be a potential Conflict of Interest (COI) with Council member’s individual interests, for example, ASNs that could now be transferred. He reminded the AC that it is prudent for each AC member to once again disclose any conflicts with respect to policy. He stated that each AC member must manage this, and advised them to consider this when they are talking about policies where they can potentially financially benefit. He reminded them that the AC has an obligation to disclose this information.

RS stated that he has disclosed information in the past regarding an org id with his initials in it, and that it was assigned to him pre-ARIN’s existence (two /24s and an ASN). He did not believe it represented a COI for him, as the value of the space to him, as operational space, far exceeded any monies he could receive. He asked that if any AC member felt this to be a COI in any situation, to please bring it to his attention. He also noted that he was a Legacy Registration Services Agreement (LRSA) signatory.

There were no other comments.

The President stated that, as AC members handle policies, they think about whether or not they could directly benefit from any policy, and bring it to the attention of the AC. He reiterated it is very important for ARIN’s integrity for the AC to operate in this manner.

The Chair stated, additionally if a Council member or members think there is a perceived COI, to share it with the Council, and state why they do not believe there is a conflict.

14. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:15 p.m. EDT. CG moved to adjourn, seconded by RS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.