ARIN Caribbean Sector Meeting Notes - 21 May 2008 [Archived]

Meeting Called to Order

Speaker: Ray Plzak, ARIN President and CEO

Ray Plzak opened the meeting and welcomed the attendees. Ray began by making meeting-related announcements and introducing those present from the ARIN Board of Trustees, the ARIN Advisory Council, the Number Resource Organization (NRO) Number Council, and ARIN staff. He thanked Mona Information Technology Services (MITS) and IEEE Jamaica Section for their sponsorship of the meeting, and also acknowledged and thanked Wilfred Roberts for his logistical assistance with the meeting.

Ray reviewed the meeting agenda and the printed materials given to each attendee. At the beginning of the meeting approximately 50 people were in attendance. Ray Plzak moderated discussions throughout the day.

Internet Number Resource Status Report

Speaker: Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services

Presentation: PDF

Leslie Nobile presented an NRO report on the current status of all allocated and available IPv4 and IPv6 address space, and assigned Autonomous System Numbers (ASNs) as of 31 March 2008. This report is updated quarterly by all the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) and provides up-to-date statistics on rates of number resource consumption.

Highlights included:

• Status of the 256 /8s and IPv4 allocation rates by region from 1999 to 2007, and for the first quarter of 2008
• ASN assignment rates by region from 1999 to 2007 and for the first quarter of 2008
• IPv6 allocations to the RIRs, and RIR IPv6 allocations and assignments by region from 1999 to 2007, and for the first quarter of 2008
• Links to all the historical data and raw statistics

Introduction to ARIN’s Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP)

Speaker: Richard Jimmerson, ARIN Chief Information Officer

Presentation: PDF

Richard began his presentation by showing “The ARIN Policy Process: From Ideas To Actions,” a Flash-based feature that describes ARIN’s current Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process. He continued with a description of the history of ARIN’s policy process, the Number Resource Policy Manual, and the current process. He ended by providing relevant links to additional resources.

Description of Existing ARIN Number Resource Policy

Speaker: Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services

Presentation: PDF

Leslie Nobile presented on the topic of current ARIN policy, including terminology and criteria for the allocation and assignment of IPv4 and IPv6 address space and Autonomous System Numbers.

2007-14: Resource Review Process

Speaker: Owen DeLong, Proposal Author

Introduction: PDF

Ray Plzak presented an introduction to the proposal. Highlights included:

• Advisory Council shepherds: Robert Seastrom and Leo Bicknell
• Introduced on PPML on 1 May 2007, designated as a formal policy on 24 July 2007. It was first discussed at ARIN XX and was again discussed at ARIN XXI. The proposal was last revised on 24 March 2008.
• This proposal is only being considered in the ARIN region.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML and Public Policy Meeting discussion activity. [see presentation link above for details]

Owen DeLong, as one of the proposal authors, continued with the presentation of the proposal. He provided a summary of the proposal and its rationale.

Discussion Highlights:

• An attendee inquired about what criteria would be used for review and what type of information would be requested. Owen replied that the review process was seen as an operational issue and was purposely left undefined in the policy and the details would be left up to ARIN staff. Scott Bradner asked for a clarification from ARIN staff on what type of information is currently reviewed. Leslie Nobile replied that many different information sources were used, including reviewing web sites, customer lists, and corporate entity records. She added that some customers from the list provided were occasionally chosen at random and contacted to verify details.
• An attendee stated that his concerns were that there needed to be some assurance that all customers were treated equally and that there needed to be some recourse for those customers who did not believe they had been treated fairly. Owen replied that equal protection was a major goal of this proposal, noting that this policy put in place limits on when ARIN could conduct reviews and what actions ARIN could take if an organization was found to be out of compliance. Leslie Nobile added that currently the same questions are asked of all customers unless staff has some reason to believe fraud has occurred.
• An attendee inquired as to any ties ARIN had with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Leslie Nobile replied that there were no ties at all, and that the basis of all decisions regarding allocations were based on the criteria outline in policy, not the identity of an organization. Ray Plzak added that the U.S. government’s relationship to ARIN was as a customer, adding that there are more than thirty U.S. federal agencies covered under ARIN Registration Services Agreements and they were treated the same as any other customer. He added that ARIN was not accountable to any specific organization, but rather to its entire community. Scott Bradner added as an example that all of the discussion and feedback raised here would be provided to the ARIN Advisory Council for their deliberations.
• An attendee asked for clarification on the phrase “substantially out of compliance” in the proposal; specifically inquiring if there was any objective criteria. Owen responded that this was an area where trust was placed in the staff to determine, with reliance on the oversight by the ARIN Board of Trustees to ensure fairness. The attendee stated that it was his belief that the criteria for compliance needed to be objectively stated in the proposal and that the phrase “requested or required” in referring to ARIN seeking to have organizations return resources be changed to remove the “requested or” part of the phrase. Owen replied that in this case, the proposal was seeking to be as community-friendly as possible, where ARIN would start out with requesting the return of resources or offer to work with the organization to bring them into compliance, and if the organization chose not to work with ARIN, then they would be required to return the resources in question. Leslie Nobile added that while the proposal had obviously not been implemented, the matter of criteria had been given some thought, and that the criteria would simply be what is stated in overall policy. She added, as an example, that 80-percent utilization is required in policy and that would be something that would be examined, and that if an organization couldn’t show that level of utilization, but could show a plan to bring themselves up to that level, ARIN would be willing to work with them. Somewhat later in the discussion, Owen DeLong added a clarification that evaluation of compliance, as referenced in this proposal, referred to compliance against the other existing policies currently in effect, and as such were objectively detailed.
• An attendee asked about criteria for receiving IPv6 address space in the Caribbean region. Leslie Nobile replied that generally policies apply equally throughout the ARIN region, but that a proposal looking to address the specific needs of the Caribbean sector of the ARIN region was on the agenda to be discussed later in the day.
• An attendee noted that the objective criteria detailed in policy seemed to refer to the period of time when an organization was requesting resources, and asked about criteria for simply using the resources. Scott Bradner directed this question to ARIN staff. Leslie Nobile responded that current practice was only to review when requests are received and the criteria would be evaluated based on what was currently deployed or, if the policy specifically states that future plans are to be included in evaluations of requests. The attendee then asked a follow-up question about whether this proposal had been revised since it was presented at the ARIN XXI meeting in Denver. Owen responded that it had not, but that it was currently in the process of being revised.
• An attendee inquired as to how criteria would apply to an ISP such as his where there are large subnets assigned for each customer. Scott Bradner referenced the IETF guidelines on IPv6 assignments.
• Leo Bicknell, Chair of the Advisory Council, noted that there was much discussion of this proposal at the ARIN XXI meeting, with many noting that the current Registration Service Agreement has some provisions for ARIN auditing space usage, and that this proposal sought to put in controls on the frequency of those audits. He added that currently they are only undertaken when requests were received or fraud was suspected, but that some in the community felt more restrictions were needed. He concluded that he was bringing this information to the floor as it accounted for about a third of the discussion of the proposal at ARIN XXI.

At the end of discussion Scott Bradner took a straw poll to determine the sense of the room. After the tally was conducted, Scott stated that this information would be provided to the Advisory Council for use in its deliberations.

2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

Speaker: Leo Bicknell, Advisory Council Chair

Presentation: PDF

Ray Plzak presented an introduction to the proposal. Highlights included:

• Advisory Council shepherds: Scott Leibrand and Stacy Taylor
• Introduced on PPML on 11 February 2008, designated as a formal policy on 26 February 2008. It was first discussed at ARIN XXI. It was revised on 7 March 2008.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation link above for details]

Leo Bicknell , as Chair of the Advisory Council which authored this proposal, continued with the presentation of the proposal. Leo presented on the topic of current policy, the history and rationale of this proposal, how the Advisory Council came to author it, and provided an overview of the text.

Presentation Highlights:

• The major intent of proposal was to keep justifiable need as basis for allocation, but allow for transfers of space from those who have extra resources to those who need them, which is not allowed for under current policy.
• The proposal keeps current paradigm in place, but creates additional pathways for transfers through a pre-qualification process with ARIN for extra space from another organization, and sets up requirements for those who wish to transfer space, how that space is transferred, and how the space is to be handled after the transfer.
• There are limits in place in proposal to hold deaggregation to a minimum, but there has been much debate on that aspect of the proposal.
• The proposal includes a “Safe Harbor” provision to protect organizations from negative action by ARIN as a result of a resource audit during the period of time it is renumbering out of space it will be seeking to transfer.

Discussion Highlights:

• Scott Bradner added, as background for the audience, that this proposal has been controversial due to the fact that Internet Protocol addresses have historically not been regarded as property, and that the revision of current policy was driven by the pending depletion of the free pool of IPv4 addresses.
• Bill Darte stated that terms like money, exchange, and markets have often been brought up in regard to these potential transfers, and that while ARIN does not advocate that, the Advisory Council did recognize that there was cost in freeing up space.
• An attendee asked that since policies do not determine costs, and he supposed that prices would be market driven, was there envisioned some sort of guideline to determine the cost of these transfers. Leo Bicknell responded that there would be principally two factors: the length of time between IPv4 depletion and broad deployments of IPv6, and the transparency of pricing. He noted that one of the systems that has been discussed would be a listing service provided by ARIN, which would not be required, but would be convenient for both sellers and buyers and create that transparency in pricing. Scott added that there were also anti-trust issues to be investigated in terms of ARIN setting prices.
• An attendee noted that while he had no problem with markets per se, he was concerned with market speculation and the impact that could have, noting that as long as need could be demonstrated, that would help to keep in check artificially inflated prices.
• An attendee stated that he did not understand the problem that was potentially being solved, in regards to transfers of IPv4 addresses, by this proposal, as IPv6 deployment would be the better solution. Leo responded that due to the expected gap between IPv4 depletion and widespread deployment of IPv6, it was assumed that there still would be a significant need for IPv4 addresses. He added that there was also expectation that need will exist post-IPv6 deployment as networks would need to be dual-stacked and there would be a need for IPv6 networks to have a small pool of available IPv4 addresses. He added that in terms of the property issue, the Advisory Council discussed this thoroughly and agreed that transfers were of a service bundle, not the integers themselves, and that service bundle includes such things as uniqueness, reverse DNS, ARIN meetings and other services. Scott Bradner added that it is also in part to recognize reality, citing a proposal in the APNIC region to establish a more pure market approach with more of an emphasis on IP addresses as property, and that if ARIN and the other RIRs don’t get out in the lead on this issue, the community may face the loss of ability to self-govern and ensure fairness.
• A question was raised by an attendee about the possibility of a sunset provision for this proposal. Leo replied that both ends of the timing issue had been discussed; both when it would take effect and when it would be set to expire. He stated that this proposal would become effective when the IANA free pool was depleted, but that no one has been able to come up with an adequate metric for a sunset period and noted that suggestions on that aspect would be encouraged.
• The possibility of transfers taking place without notice to ARIN was raised by an attendee who went on to inquire what the repercussions would be. Leo noted that the services, such as listing in ARIN WHOIS and reverse DNS would then not be transferred, and that if either party in the transfer came back to ARIN looking for additional resources, they would likely run into problems. Leslie Nobile noted that currently transfers are not always registered immediately, but as long as the parties involved come back to ARIN with adequate documentation the transfers could still be recognized. She further noted that the treatment of such cases may need to be different in the future, depending on how policy in this area developed.
• An attendee asked about the stated rationale included with the proposal, noting that there seemed to be certain points that were not covered in the actual policy text. Leo responded that this was helpful feedback and that information would be included when drafting a future revision.
• An attendee asked about a secondary market for IP addresses and what possible parallels there might be with the broadcast spectrum market. Scott Bradner replied that the spectrum market is different in significant ways, most notably that it was less complicated in some ways due to the lack of concerns like those with IP addresses in terms of routing and yet more complicated in terms of government regulatory oversight.

At the end of discussion Scott Bradner took a straw poll to determine the sense of the room. After the tally was conducted, Scott stated that this information would be provided to the Advisory Council for use in its deliberations.

Open Microphone

Moderator: Scott Bradner, ARIN Secretary of the Board

Scott Bradner opened the microphone for comments from the floor. Topics of discussion included:

• An attendee asked how ARIN was funded. Scott Bradner replied that ARIN was a nonprofit organization and the funding comes from the organizations that receive resource services from ARIN or who pay specifically for membership. He went on to note that ARIN did have a relationship with ICANN which runs IANA, but that it is not a controlling relationship, and that ARIN policies do not receive oversight from ICANN, but that global policies applying to all RIRs do go before the ICANN Board.
• Bill Darte of the ARIN Advisory Council stated that in discussions here he had noted some confusion and discussion about how Caribbean islands were split between ARIN and LACNIC when LACNIC was created. Ray Plzak responded with a history of that process, noting that it was complicated and was impacted by many concerns, with the final decision made between the provisional LACNIC Board and ARIN’s Board. He went on to note that before the change took place, all member organizations that were impacted were notified by letter and invited to comment.

BoT, AC, NRO NC Activities

Speakers: Scott Bradner, ARIN Board of Trustees; Leo Bicknell, ARIN Advisory Council; Louis Lee, NRO Number Council

Advisory Council Presentation: PDF

NRO Number Council Presentation: PDF

Scott Bradner as the representative from the ARIN Board of Trustees began this agenda item by discussing the Board of Trustees, its role within ARIN, and some of its recent activities. Leo Bicknell, as Chair of the ARIN Advisory Council, then presented on those same topics as they apply to the Advisory Council. Louis Lee, as both a representative from the ARIN region to the NRO Number Council and as its Chair for 2008, then did the same for the NRO NC.

Discussion Highlights:

• A question was raised after Leo Bicknell’s presentation regarding who was eligible to propose ARIN number resource policy. Leo replied that anyone in the entire Internet community was eligible to submit a policy proposal. Ray Plzak added as a clarification that ARIN staff is prohibited from submitting or commenting on proposals, as their role is purely as facilitators of the process. Scott Bradner added that in the new proposed policy development process, the Board was looking to better utilize and empower the Advisory Council while maintaining significant checks and balances, and provided some additional information on the proposed process changes.

ccTLD Operations

Speaker: Carlton Samuels, Chief Information Officer, Mona & University Director of IT University of the West Indies

Presentation: PDF

Carlton Samuels presented information on the .jm ccTLD registry for Jamaica, including a history, and overview of its connection to ICANN, and how it was structured. He highlighted information on coming changes at the registry including the adoption of a new model of governance, a move towards commercialization, and the creation of an Advisory Board.

IEEE Overview

Speaker: Devon Gayle, IEEE Region 3, Area 9 Chair

Presentation: PDF

Devon Gayle gave a brief overview of the history and scope of IEEE, and specifically the Jamaica section of Region 3. He highlighted IEEE standards developed for wireless networking, and talked about the activities and opportunities available to the community in the Jamaica Section of Region 3.

ARIN Activities in the Caribbean

Speaker: Richard Jimmerson, ARIN Chief Information Officer

Presentation: PDF

Richard Jimmerson gave an overview of events hosted or attended by ARIN in the Caribbean Region in 2007 and 2008. He invited the community to provide feedback on how we can continue to grow participation from the sector.

2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation

Speaker: Bill Darte, Advisory Council

Introduction: PDF

Ray Plzak presented an introduction to the proposal. Highlights included:

• Advisory Council shepherds: Bill Darte and Paul Andersen
• Introduced on PPML on 11 February 2008, designated as a formal policy on 4 March 2008. This was discussed for the first time at the ARIN XXI meeting. It was last revised on 1 April 2008, and the Advisory Council is currently working with the author on revising the text.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation link above for details]

Bill Darte , as a representative of the Advisory Council, continued with the presentation of the proposal.

Discussion Highlights:

• An attendee stated that something like this proposal would be very useful in Jamaica. Bill replied that many at the ARIN XXI meeting felt the same way and that the Advisory Council was willing to move this forward with some revisions to the text, and they were currently working with the author. Bill went on to say that in his own opinion, community groups need a place to communicate and that these groups should be able to use their existing organization model without having to change that model simply to qualify for address space. Scott Bradner added that there are also communities in the U.S. that would find this useful, citing Native American groups and associations of high schools as examples.
• An attendee spoke in strong support of this policy proposal, especially as how it would benefit distant communities in the Caribbean, and how it might possibly help to foster the maturation and proliferation of new open source technologies such as Wi Max.

At the end of discussion Scott Bradner took a straw poll to determine the sense of the room. After the tally was conducted, Scott stated that this information would be provided to the Advisory Council for use in its deliberations.

2008-4: Minimum Allocation in the Caribbean Region

Speaker: Suzanne Woolf, Advisory Council

Introduction: PDF

Ray Plzak presented an introduction to the proposal. Highlights included:

• Advisory Council shepherds: Heather Schiller and Matt Pounsett
• Introduced on PPML on 16 May 08, designated as a formal policy on 15 May 2008. This will be the first discussion of this proposal at an ARIN meeting.
• Presentation of Staff Impact Analysis, Legal Review, Staff Comments, and overview of PPML discussion activity. [see presentation link above for details]

Suzanne Woolf, as a representative of the Advisory Council, continued with the presentation of the proposal, and outlined the specific requirements detailed in the proposal. Ray Plzak then provided some additional information about the creation of this proposal, citing the past history of a similar policy and mentioning that this would be the first discussion of this proposal. Leo Bicknell, as a procedural note, explained that to draft this policy, the Advisory Council based the language on a policy that had been in effect for the African portion of the ARIN region, prior to AFRINIC assuming full RIR status. He went on to state that the language needed to be further revised to better integrate in with the current policy manual, but that the intent of the proposal should remain the same.

Discussion Highlights:

• An attendee spoke in support of the proposal, but asked if there was any data on the number of organizations that would benefit from this becoming policy. Later in the discussion, Leslie Nobile was able to provide approximate numbers, stating that ARIN has, so far, received very few requests for initial allocations from the Caribbean. She went on to say that of those received, about 50-percent were approved, and that there have been 34 resource requests for allocations, assignments, and AS numbers received between March 2007 and March 2008.
• An attendee stated that it appeared that in order to qualify under this proposal an organization would need to have received space from an upstream provider, and asked organizations looking to receive address space for the first time. Ray Plzak directed the question to Leslie Nobile. Leslie replied that all requests are evaluated based on previous use of address space, so for example if an organization was looking to get a /22 of IPv4 address space, it would need to show that it was using an equivalent amount of space, either contiguous or noncontiguous from an upstream provider. Ray asked if it would be possible for an organization under this proposal to qualify based on the justification outlined in the immediate need policy. Leslie replied that yes it would be possible, and that would lower the requirement for existing space to a /22. Another attendee requested that be specifically stated in the proposal.
• Leo Bicknell asked the attendees if it would be seen as useful if this proposal was also revised to include assignments to end-users, stating that currently it only applied to allocations to ISPs. A number of attendees spoke in favor of such a revision, and one attendee suggested that if this was done, it would need to be harmonized with the minimum assignment sizes already specified elsewhere in the policy manual. Of those speaking in favor of inclusion of assignments in this policy, a primary reason cited was that it would help foster competition and liberalize the industry in the Caribbean. Leo Bicknell stated that the most likely opposition to the inclusion of assignments would be that it would cause growth in the routing tables, and that others in the community would likely be more sympathetic if assignments under this proposal were limited to those organizations that multi-home, as a routing announcement would result from that anyway. Additional discussion of this aspect occurred, with several comments mentioning that the proposal would likely have a greater chance of success if it could be shown that the impact on the routing table would be minimal considering the size of the Caribbean.

At the end of discussion Scott Bradner took a straw poll to determine the sense of the room. After the tally was conducted, Scott stated that this information would be provided to the Advisory Council for use in its deliberations.

Open Microphone

Moderator: Scott Bradner, ARIN Secretary of the Board

Scott Bradner opened the microphone for comments from the floor. Topics of discussion included:

• A discussion occurred on the topic of how an organization can decide where to apply for resources if they have a presence in both the ARIN and LACNIC regions, with Ray Plzak explaining that if an organization had a presence in more than one RIR region, it was standard practice that they could choose which RIR they applied to. An attendee suggested that it would be valuable at future meetings to include staff from LACNIC, and Ray Plzak replied that LACNIC had been made aware of this meeting and it was planning on having a similar meeting for their portion of the Caribbean. A suggestion was also made that policies affecting the Caribbean be coordinated between LACNIC and ARIN. Ray Plzak replied that there was precedent for this with RIPE NCC having passed a policy for the African portion of its region at the same time ARIN did, and that anyone could propose a policy in LACNIC to offer the same benefits proposal 2008-4 could potentially offer in the ARIN portion of the Caribbean.
• A number of attendees, including Nigel Cassimire, Bernadette Lewis and Wilfred Roberts all spoke in thanks to ARIN for this meeting and for its outreach efforts in the Caribbean. Scott Bradner stated that he thanked everyone in attendance and noted the level of participation at this meeting was much higher than what usually occurs at a regular ARIN biannual meeting.

Closing Announcements and Adjournment

Speaker: Ray Plzak, ARIN President and CEO

Ray Plzak once again thanked those in attendance, ARIN staff and representatives, and the sponsors of the meeting: Mona Information Technology Services (MITS) and IEEE Jamaica Section. He noted that ARIN would be conducting a survey of everyone who attended the meeting and would use that information to inform decisions on future meetings and outreach in the Caribbean.

Sponsors