Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 July 2013 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair (JSw)
• Dan Alexander, Vice Chair (DA)
• Kevin Blumberg (KB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Chris Grundemann (CG)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Milton Mueller (MM)
• Bill Sandiford (BS)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• John Springer (JSp)

Minute Taker:

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel

• Einar Bohlin (EB), Sr. Policy Analyst

• John Curran, President & CEO

• Leslie Nobile, (LN) Dir., Registration Services

ARIN General Counsel:

• Steve Ryan, Esq.

Regrets:

• Cathy Aronson, Nate Davis, Owen DeLong

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments. There were no 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 June 2013, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles

HS joined at this time (4:08 pm EDT). CG stated that a second version had been sent to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and the discussion had been more positive. Further revisions needed to be made from the feedback received.

MM queried what staff’s opinion was on this policy? He expressed that the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) currently settles the issues, noting that RFC 2050 still exists. CG explained that a formal legal review would not be requested until the policy text was settled. The author did not intend to change the policy. Conflicting text was removed in the second version, and the problem statement was clear. Because RFC 2050 slated be deprecated, the principles should be carried forward; and, after discussion, folks that supported this idea decided that the NRPM would be the best place for it to reside. MM countered that if the IETF gets rid of RFC 2050, the text would still exist, and would still be in the NPRM.

The Chair stated that, with regard to this policy, the Policy Development Process (PDP) was being followed; and, the policy was moving forward within that process. The AC would need a clear reason for abandoning it, and at this time there was no clear reason. CG agreed, stating that the principles would remain, but in the worse possible case it would become a no-op, and that was not enough of a reason, at this point in time, to abandon the policy.

The President stated that when the text was finalized, a staff review would be performed. He noted that with respect to RFC 2050 and NRPM, to the greatest extent possible, the policy rules to follow should be in the NRPM, as ARIN used it to build processes and procedures. He suggested that if there was something staff should follow, it should be in the NRPM. He acknowledged that RFC 2050 looked like it would be deprecated. He suggested that when that happens, it would be best (instead of an omnibus approach) to identify any principles that were missing; and, to consider putting them into the appropriate sections of the NRPM, for example, the start of sections 4 and 6. It would be useful to take them one by one, and find out what the community supported having in the NRPM.

MM agreed it should be taken piece by piece, as bundling was not helpful. He noted that the AC could not dismiss this policy, but he expressed doubts about the usefulness of the current exercise. He believed it more productive to proceed as the President had suggested.

DF asked the President if the intent was to develop policy by these principles, then should they not be in NRPM? The President stated that in the beginning, more than 15 years ago, RFC 2050 contained resource policy and principles. Presently, there were not many number resource policies coming from the IETF, or from ICANN. Currently, in the ARIN region, principles for number resource policy were contained in the PDP. There were also goals for IPv4 and IPv6 policy which were in the beginning of both sections 4 and 6 of the NRPM; and, were under the under the control of the AC and the community.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-5: LIR/ISP and End-user Definitions

KB stated that he had a meeting after the last AC teleconference, and it resulted in revised text changes to the initial proposal. He noted an added sentence, which would put the onus on organizations to prove they were an end-user, or otherwise they would be defined as an LIR/ISP. He explained that it had taken some time to come to this revision, as other types of changes would have had ramifications to previous resources in complicated ways. When he and the others working on this proposal had tried to define it, it had become worse. This revised text would be sent to the PPML for feedback. He stated that during the discussions, a number of times, this issue had been broached in relation to draft policy 2013-4, and that was being monitored.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-Region Requestors

DF stated that the proposed text changes were sent to the AC’s list and were discussed. He noted that the author’s intent had changed, and DF called for feedback from the AC. He stated that a conference call was being scheduled next week with the authors. He requested staff, preferably LN, to attend for clarification on ARIN’s current practice, and policy experience reports on this subject, to ensure the discussion went in the right direction. He invited any AC members to join the call if they were interested.

BD stated that he believed the conference call was a good idea, and supported DF. He believed that if there was a middle ground to be had, the AC should try to find it. If that could not be done, the policy should be presented at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting (PPM) in October, as written, and let the community discuss it. He suggested that it be made clear to the authors that they had the option of the petition process if it was in their best interest, should they and the AC fail to find middle ground.

The Chair stated that this option should be discussed on the conference call. The Chair commended the AC’s efforts with regard to conferencing with the authors, as the calls were very productive.

KB stated that he had experienced disagreements, regarding the text, with the authors - to the community’s benefit. If the authors were not working with the AC, they could petition. However, it was the AC’s job to present good policy to the community. The AC was following the PDP with regard to policy, and fundamentally had to be comfortable with the text. The Chair agreed, stating that the AC’s duty was to the community, not to the authors. DF agreed.

The President stated that KB was correct: the AC was responsible for the development of the policy. The AC was responsible for making changes; and, if originators were not cooperating in taking it in a direction the community would support, then the AC would not need to continue working with the originator.

7. ARIN-Prop-186: Section 8.2 Reorganizations

The ARIN Board of Trustees would review this proposal during their meeting in August.

8. Improve Communications Group (IC) Report

CG stated that there was no update at this time.

9. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. The Chair requested that the AC let staff know if the calendar invitations for these meetings, which were being sent to the AC’s list, worked for them.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:48 p.m. EDT. SH moved to adjourn, seconded by RS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.