Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 11 October 2013 [Archived]

Chandler, Arizona

Advisory Council Attendees:

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

Minute Taker:

• Einar Bohlin (EB), Sr. Policy Analyst

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel

• John Curran, President & CEO

• Nate Davis, COO

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

ARIN General Counsel:

• Steve Ryan, Esq.

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:00 p.m. MDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments.

OD asked for item 2 from the workshop agenda (ACSP item 2013.6, discussion of the ARIN Mission Statement) be moved to AOB in the minuted meeting. JSw added it to AOB.

SL asked for discussion of the size of the AC. JSw added this to the workshop agenda.

KB asked for discussion of AC travel to RIR meetings. JSw added this to the workshop agenda.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 19 September 2013, as written.”

The Chair called for any comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ARIN-2013-4 to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion.

CG noted support at both the PPC and PPM and readiness for last call. CG asked if the changes presented at the PPC and PPM should be made now or in last call. DF said there was a suggestion that the example should be moved to the rationale. CA asked about the discussion at the PPC, was it the same people who spoke at both the PPC and PPM? It was pointed out that information about who spoke at the PPC was put on the AC’s list. KB noted that in any case the numbers were very supportive and spoke in favor of the two changes, the name change and moving the example text to rationale. CG said he was okay with title change, but didn’t think it was necessary. JSp noted that the title change is substantial, and will likely draw comment in last call. SL agreed with the title change; discussion with other RIRs could be done regarding RIR Principles.

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

“Amend the motion for last call to include the changes that were presented at the meeting and to put the removed example text into the rationale.”

JSp asked where the rationale would be archived. HS explained it would be preserved on the Draft Policy page.

The Chair called for a roll call vote to amend the motion.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, and 1 (HS) against, via roll call.

Motion is, “The ARIN Advisory Council advances ARIN-2013-4 to Last Call with the changes that were presented at the meeting and to put the removed example text into the rationale.”

The Chair called for a roll call vote.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, and 1 (MM) abstention, via roll call. MM explained that he still did not like the policy.

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

SH stepped out at 1:20 pm.

DF stated intent to leave the draft on the docket and work on the text.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6.”

DF opposed to the motion, he would rather work on the text, stating it would be keeping good faith with the proposal authors. OD said the community wants the AC to work on smaller parts.

SH back at 1:23 pm.

BD in favor of the motion. The text did not align with the author’s intent or needs; the author would prefer to have the original proposal voted on. The author can resubmit. The AC can perform a scope review, and if not in scope, the author can petition. Many noted that submitter’s needs would not be met with the proposal submitted. OD noted that the author wanted accurate Whois data. The community told us to start from scratch. JSp noted that prop-189 had three statements. Two were orthogonal to submitter’s desire. The proposal did not specify real desire to help LEA with out-of-region requests. JSp suggested keeping the draft and revising it to provide the author with what they are looking for. Process went sideways.

MM said LEA was confused and did not articulate what they wanted, until two days ago, accuracy and registration. The original proposal was dead on arrival. Shepherds did good work with what they had. In favor of abandonment. If we want to fix the territorial issue, then keep the draft and let’s work on it. LEA can ask for something like anyone else, they are due same respect and skepticism. RS pointed out two issues, first is accuracy of data in database, second is address space leaving region. Those two issues cannot be in the same draft policy. There is always a small amount of fraud that must be dealt with. In favor of abandonment. SL in favor of abandonment, the community was clear that territorial restrictions on multinational networks is a bad idea. Status quo better than what this proposal would do. Registration accuracy a staff procedural matter. HS noted that a Jason Schiller clearly explained what LEA appeared to want. DF okay with abandonment, will submit a proposal with new text.

The President pointed out that AC’s job is to help submitter be clear and explain what problem they perceive with present policy, but AC does not have to argue the merit of those views. KB noted disconnect with submitter’s desire and text. Draft is not technically sound. Need workable problem statement to solve the issue that staff wants fixed in the policy experience report. The President noted that the purpose of the Policy Experience and Implementation Report is to inform the community of the present situation; it is not a call for policy and ultimately up to you to decide if any change to policy is needed or not. MM asked if the AC wants staff to continue as they are without better guidance? SR said there was value to the organization if the AC could find the right balance to address the out of region issue. SH asked to call the question. DF asked for help with crafting the abandonment statement.

The Chair called for a roll call vote.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, and 1 (HS) abstention, via roll call. HS abstained due to work related conflict of interest.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-7: Merge IPv4 ISP and End-User Requirements

Chair to lead.

SL said the community does not like the text, it needs work. SL willing to work with the author to make it smaller pieces. In favor of leaving the draft on the docket.

BD said the text might be able to be presented better, it might not need to be split up. KB in favor of keeping on the docket. OD pointed out that this is IPv4 policy, minor work needed, but in any case it’s too late for changes to IPv4 policy. CG said show of hands indicated that community did not support this.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons Draft Policy ARIN-2013-7.”

SR left at 2:05 pm.

KB against abandonment, there are parts that the community agreed with, the question was not good. JSp against abandonment, show of hands may have been influenced by the way the question was phrased, said there was some support for continuing to work on this. BD agreed, work in this area needs to be continued. SH asked for focus on the merits. The President spoke about phrasing questions during presentation, specifically the AC can bring a list of questions they want posed, but there cannot be questions on matters that had not been discussed. OD asked that discussion of posing questions be moved to AOB.

The Chair called for a roll call vote.

The motion failed with 1 (DF) in favor, 11 (CA, KB, BD, CG, SH, SL, BS, HS, RS, JSp, JSw) against and 3 (DA, OD, MM) abstentions, via roll call. DA abstained as the proposal author. OD had no strong feeling. MM said this was a complex issue, did not fully understand implications of abandonment.

7. Improve Communications Group (IC) Report

CG moved that the document, AC Expectations and Decorum, be forwarded to the Board for the AC’s charter or Standing Rules. OD seconded. CG said that today there is no clear process other than Robert’s Rules for the AC to follow. The document is is a clear procedure. ND said staff and Counsel had reviewed the text. The President noted that if the Board adopts this, it would either become part of the AC’s Standing Rules or the AC’s charter. BD suggested that this be part of the training at the January AC face to face meeting.

OD left at 2:21 pm.

The Chair called for a roll call vote.

The motion carried unanimously.

OD back at 2:23 pm.

8. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

ACSP 2013.6Modifying Mission Statement to Add the Term “Needs-based”

The President said that the ARIN Board recommended that the AC review the principles in the NRPM, and add any principles that they feel are needed. The President further said the Board should has been discussing the process for changing the Mission Statement and/or bylaws and is now working on this issue to make those documents more accountable to membership. HS would like the old Mission Statement back. CG pointed out that 2013-4 has the concept of technical need as a principle. MM asked why would number policy ever go into a Mission Statement? OD stated he was glad that since this touched on policy that discussion took place in the minuted meeting.

9. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 2:35 p.m. MDT. SH moved to adjourn, seconded by CA. The meeting adjourned with no objections.