Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 26 October 2012 [Archived]

Dallas, Texas

Advisory Council Attendees:

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

Minute Taker

• Einar Bohlin

ARIN Staff:

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

General Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.

Observers:

• Paul Andersen, ARIN Board of Trustees
• Paul Vixie, ARIN Board of Trustees

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:31p.m. CDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda and called for any comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 20 September 2012, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no discussion.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 10 October 2012, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no discussion.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Draft Policy ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement

HS suggested that the AC continue to work on this draft policy. She noted that OD had suggested revisions, and that others had also approached her to offer suggestions. She believed the text needed work.

The President suggested that if the new Policy Development Process (PDP) is adopted and implemented, then there could be a Public Policy Consultation (PPC) during a NANOG meeting – noting it could be in February 2013. The AC would decide what to bring to these consultations, such as 2012-2; and, the AC presenters would attend the PPC.

ND noted that a small team of ARIN staff would also attend the NANOG meeting. Furthermore, he pointed out that ARIN already sends one AC member to each NANOG meeting. KB noted that the NANOG conference is an operational group, and while this may allow the AC to fast track some items, it has some risks. The Chair noted that the AC might value NANOG’s more operational input on policies.

SL believed 2012-2 still needed work, and would not support a motion to send it to last call. DF agreed. CG stated he supported sending it to last call at the next meeting; however, sending it to last call now would be acceptable. He believed the draft policy was ready. He stated the words did not change, they were only moved. BD suggested waiting, per the results of the ARIN XXX floor count. OD suggested revising the text and sending it to last call at the next meeting. CA stated she was not in favor of sending it to last call. The Chair stated that the AC could work on the text during their workshop.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5: Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multi-Homers

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXX 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-2012-5: Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multi-homers, and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. CA stated that it needed to go to last call. KB had made a statement regarding pushing people to the market and that had influenced her decision. OD pointed out that the floor counts supported last call. KB noted that some people wanted others to suffer the way they had, versus this being a good or bad policy. CG stated that operators were present and not concerned about routing slots.

The motion carried via roll call with 13 in favor and one abstention (RS) via roll call. RS explained he abstained due to not being present at the Public Policy Meeting when this was discussed.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size

BS suggested working on this at the workshop, and making a decision at the AC’s next meeting. BD noted that there was a suggestion to split this into two items. OD believed that this should be abandoned and redone. CG and KB agreed. SL pointed out that the AC could rewrite the text with this proposal, and believed that abandoning this would create unnecessary work. BS agreed, and stated he would like to try to work on the text. CG stated that starting with a blank sheet sometimes allows for a better result. SH agreed that starting over would be better, pointing out that the policy already exists. HS stated that the discussion was more about what CI is, versus the size of the reservation.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXX 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-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. BS spoke against the motion, stating it limited the AC’s options. KB supported the motion, stating that the community did not care about pool size; the community cared about the definition of CI. SH was in support of abandonment. DF supported abandonment as well, stating the need to make a good statement about this when it was posted to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). CA asked ‘what if we want to increase the pool size?’ This might be overtaken by events. RS stated that TLD applications are high. They should be able to get space on the market.

CG stated that the current definition of CI will deplete the pool, and changing the definition to exclude TLD would do the opposite of what the proposal wanted to do. DF pointed out that CI is already being issued from the /16, and the proposal would start with a new /15. SL stated that the gTLDs would cause problems that need to be addressed. He preferred to not abandon the policy, and work on the text.

Counsel noted that ARIN’s use of the term Critical Infrastructure is different from the rest of the world, and this might need to be fixed. He explained one couldn’t expand or change the definition without a policy change. The President stated that there were hundreds of new gTLD applications that had been submitted. Under existing policy, the letter of eligibility received from ICANN will allow them to be considered sanctioned and thus able to receive space from the CI block. He cautioned about changing the definition mid-stream, asking the AC to make sure there is community support for any change made.

OD stated he was against the motion. He stated the issue is urgent and needs to be worked on now. BS believed that there was no harm in keeping this as something to work on and to submit other proposals. He suggested working on it in the workshop. BD stated that abandoning a proposal gives notice with a statement about changing the definition to the community, and that this was a serious issue. KB noted that the /16 would be used, but that this was expected anyway.

The Chair noted the proposal was about adding more space to the CI pool. The floor counts indicated that the community wanted policy to protect the ccTLDs and IXes. BS noted that the AC did not have to abandon the draft in order to send a message; the AC could still send the message that BD spoke about - the issue was urgent. HS believed that the changes to the text that were being suggested went too far.

The President, speaking as a non-voting member of the AC, believed the proposal originated to expand the CI pool for both gTLD and non-gTLD CI pool users, in light of the new gTLD program. It would surprise gTLD requestors to hear that the pool was being expanded but that they would be losing their ‘pool pass’, and many would consider that to be a new concept compared to the original proposal.

DF stated that he was against the motion, wanted to keep it, and believed that it was useful. CG stated that something could be done before the next AC meeting, then keep it, otherwise abandoning it would do no harm. OD stated that ICANN was about to empty the pool, and that this matter was urgent. He was in favor of revoking the gTLD ‘pool pass’. KB believed the changes were radical, and wondered ‘can we, should we’ do this?

The Chair reviewed the floor counts. RS noted that each TLD needed 6 /24s. 10,000 TLDs would use a /8. ICANN’s plan would steamroll the CI pool, not the entire ARIN pool. BS noted that he and OD, as the shepherds of this policy, are asking for one more month to work on this policy. SL noted that his suggested text did not exclude the gTLDs. CG stated that IXes would need space, and gTLDs would deplete the pool. He believed there was a need to create two pools, one for IXes and one for gTLDs.

The motion failed with13 against, and1 abstention (RS). RS explained he abstained due to not being present at the Public Policy Meeting when this was discussed.

The Chair called for recess at this time (1:55 p.m. CDT) for 10 minutes.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:05 p.m. CDT.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2012-7: Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXX 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-2012-7: Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable, and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. DA stated he would abstain due to being employed by a cable provider. The President stated that the policy applies to a serving area which needed additional address space. BS noted that there could be some repetition, however on a small scale - /22s, /21s. KB noted that a USA organization stated that it would benefit from this policy.

The motion carried with 13 in favor and one abstention (DA) via roll call.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy

CG stated this proposal had underwent revisions that he would post to the AC list shortly. DF believed there were some simple changes that could be made and then it could be posted to the PPML. He suggested it could go to last call at the next AC meeting. SL supported continued work, but since it was not urgent, he would not support sending it to last call.

9. ARIN-Prop-180: ISP Private Reassignment

BD noted that this was discussed at the lunch tables during ARIN XXX, and that there was support for this matter. He would support this as a draft policy. SH pointed out that a few law enforcement agencies had requested this type of service, and it has been done for them. BS stated he was at a lunch table on the first day, and most were in favor of abandonment. KB believed it would require extensive work, and that it had little support. CG believed it to be a horrible idea, he noted that the ARIN XXX meeting room had been against it; and, he believed it should be abandoned. He stated that some specific organizations might need something like this, but a blanket policy was bad. DF stated he was in support of abandonment, as it could be resubmitted. The President stated that good policy starts with a problem statement. BS stated that the author is seeking policy alignment among the RIRs. There is no harm to abandon this later, if some wanted to work on it.

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. BD stated that the author had customers who wanted this service. DF supported the motion, but noted this is a reoccurring problem and that it needed work. CG agreed it needed work, and believed that the RIRs needed alignment, but in the direction ARIN was taking. KB stated it needed a viable problem statement, and was in favor of abandonment. OD stated that he was in favor of abandoning this every time it came in. SL believed it could be good test case for the new PDP, but it needed a problem statement. He wanted the AC to work with the community to define the problem statement. HS stated that these rules were for the good of the community, what’s needed is a statement explaining why the Whois policy was the way it was. RS was in favor of abandonment, noting that his personal record has a P.O. box and anyone else’s could too.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

10. ARIN-Prop-182: Update Residential Customer Definition to Not Exclude Wireless as Residential Service

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Update Residential Customer Definition to Not Exclude Wireless as Residential Service’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that it needed work on the question of whether mobile or fixed wireless is a residential service. ND stated he had reviewed the definition in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) Section 2.13: a residential customer receive their service at their residence. CG spoke about the cable policy that expanded to the residential subscriber policy. All fixed broadband services to homes could do market areas. Homes passed did not apply to mobile services. He wanted to see the problem statement. DF noted that there were mobile providers with service to one’s home, but it could be moved. CA noted that there were not many cell phones at the time when the cable policy for homes passed was worked on. What problem was really trying to be solved? She offered to help figure out the problem statement. ND read the proposal rationale. DF offered to use the new PDP as a guide to help work on the problem statement. SL stated he had spoken to the author, and the technology has changed. There was a need to work on this further.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

11. Improve Communications Group (IC) Report

(IC members: KB, BD, OD, CG)

KB suggested that a once a month a post should be done to PPML with a list of the items that the AC was working on, with suggestions on how to use good subject lines, and to summarize the TOS and AUP. CG suggested that the shepherds shepherd the discussion.

The Chair noted that this could be an item on the AC’s January face-to-face meeting agenda. The President stated that if the AC wants a more concise mailing list AUP, for example requiring only in response to draft policies, they should ask for it. ARIN staff moderates the list, but will not shut down general policy discussion today. The Chair stated that the AC needed to set the example. KB stated that incremental improvements are needed; and that folks need to know the rules. DF noted that people sign up to PPML at any time, and it would be useful to post the rules once a month. He noted that some things should not be discussed on the PPML, but where then would they be discussed? KB noted that other technologies were not wanted, but that e-mail was acceptable; the PPML should not be the ‘garbage’ list. SH noted that there needed to be a place where people can ask “what if?” The President discussed the value of opening another list - would someone benefit? Why were some people not following the PPML? KB reviewed the PPML draft policy counts, small amounts of policy discussion versus the total discussion on the list.

The Chair asked the President if the AC’s January face-to-face meeting could be extended to a day and a half, with the half-day on Saturday, and the dinner moved to Friday evening. The President stated that it was possible, but up to the AC. There was discussion of potential conflicts on Thursday.

The Chair explained that there would be training on the new PDP; and, stated that that this time, AC members should arrive Thursday, participate in the dinner on Friday, and depart on Saturday. He pointed out that there would be new AC members. ND stated that there would be training offered on Thursday to the new AC members.

12. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

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

“The ARIN AC salutes out-going ARIN Board Trustee, Scott Bradner, and extends their sincerest thanks to Scott for his years of service to ARIN. Scott’s guidance and wisdom over the years has been invaluable to our efforts and will be greatly missed.”

The motion carried enthusiastically, unanimously.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 3:04 p.m. CDT. CG moved to adjourn, seconded by SL. The meeting adjourned with no objections.