Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council
08 May 2003
- Alec Peterson, Chairman (AP)
- Dana Argiro (DA)
- Bill Darte (BD)
- Andrew Dul (AD)
- Ron da Silva (RD)
- Dale Finkelson (DF)
- Sanford H. George (SHG)
- Mark Kosters (MK)
- Lea Roberts (LR)
- John Sweeting (JS)
- Stacy Taylor (ST)
- Cathy Wittbrodt (CW)
- Suzanne Woolf (SW)
Apologies: Avi Freedman
Absent: Kevin Martin
- Ray Plzak, President and CEO (RP)
- Richard Jimmerson, ARIN Director of Operations (RJ)
- Therese Colosi, Recording Secretary
The Chair opened the call at 4:03 p.m. EDT. Roll call was taken and the presence of a quorum was noted.
2. Agenda Bashing
There were no comments.
3. Formal Approval of the Minutes of April 8, 2003.
JS moved that:
The ARIN Advisory Council adopt the minutes of April 8, 2003 as written.
4. Last Call Status
Policy Proposal 2002-5: Amnesty Requests
SG moved that:
The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XI Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mail list and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommend that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt Policy Proposal 2002-5.
ST seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Policy Proposal 2002-6: Aggregation Requests
JS moved that:
The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XI Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mail list and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommend that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt Policy Proposal 2002-6.
ST seconded the motion. The motion carried unanimously.
Policy Proposal 2003-5: RWhois Server Use Requirements
MK moved that:
The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN X Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mail list, noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, and noting that there have been substantive comments regarding Policy Proposal 2003-5 advise the ARIN Board of Trustees that Policy Proposal 2003-5 will be returned to the public policy mailing list for further discussion and consideration.
DA seconded the motion. MK further stated that he would put out a revised draft shortly that will reflect most of the comments received. MK, DA and SG would provide an update at the next AC meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
5. Discussion Group Report on 2003-1 Human POC, and 2003-2 Network Abuse.
AD stated that he did not receive much feedback on these policy proposals and discussion ensued on the usefulness of flagging resource and contact data to ensure whether it is fresh and up to date or not. All agreed that it would be useful to have a data flagging mechanism in place. The Chair tasked the AC Abuse Discussion Group to ask the community questions and continue to look into whether or not to make abuse contact mandatory and to flag the data.
6. Discussion Group Report on 2003-3 Residential Customer Privacy.
BD stated that he and ST worked with Dave Barger to craft the policy and it now needs to be posted to the public policy list. The Chair asked ARIN staff to assign an identity to this re-drafted policy document and post to it to the website and mailing list. All agreed.
7. Discussion Group Report on 2003-4 IPv6 Policy Changes.
DF gave a brief update stating that no consensus has been reached on whether or not this is a good idea. He would be receiving input shortly from the I2 list and from meetings he knew of that had taken place recently. DF asked how he could find out what the other registries thoughts were on this issue. RJ replied that ARIN staff attends other RIR’s meetings and can give provide feedback. DF expressed his interest in receiving this information.
All agreed that continued discussion needed to take place before consensus could be reached on this issue. RP suggested the AC subscribe to the global policy v6 list hosted by APNIC stating that subscription information is posted on the ARIN website. BD asked if ARIN staff could add the AC to the list. This was agreed upon.
8. Discussion Group Report on RIR relationship with IANA.
RP apologized for not providing information and stated that he would provide it shortly. SW expressed a need to know where the IANA staff and ICANN stands and the scope what the AC’s role is specifically. It was agreed that a conference call would be set up next week.
9. Discussion Group Report on 2003-9 WHOIS Acceptable Use Policy (AUP).
SG took the author’s new proposal and modified it. It was sent to the AC and needs to be reviewed by legal counsel. DF thought it was a sound document and stated that no one seemed to have any problems with the newly proposed policy. There were only detailed questions of implementation but no major objections.
The Chair requested ARIN staff and legal counsel to review the policy. All agreed.
10. Discussion Group Report on 2002-2 Experimental Resource Allocations.
SW stated that there was not much to report, but would keep working on it and bring it up at the upcoming NANOG meeting in Salt Lake City. RJ stated that he would find out if any ARIN region ASO AC members would be attending and would email all of them and the AC to get a discussion started.
RP stated that any discussions must involve IAB/ISG because they can determine at what point in time an experiment is an IETF experiment or just a local experiment that won’t end up “breaking” the Internet.
SW reiterated that the task at hand was to reviewing other RIR’s policies as a guideline, and draft a strawman. It was agreed to draft a strawman to start working with and get preliminary comments before the next meeting.
11. Discussion Group Report on 2002-3 Micro-Assignments.
BD read modified wording to this policy proposal. The AC liked the wording but agreed that it needs further debate to move it along. The AC would review the modified policy and post it to the list for comments. RJ interjected that following the LACNIC meeting, LACNIC approved receiving down to a /24, which makes APNIC and LACNIC two registries that have policies in place on this matter. BD suggested contacting both registries to get their feedback on how it is working for them. RJ further stated that, in the past when RIPE NCC received a request from an ISP representing an end-user, requesting provider-independent address space of any size, RIPE NCC has assigned it to them, but that it is not a common request.
The Chair requested the AC to review the policy on the list.
12. Discussion Group Report on Management of Key Signing Key.
LR stated that BD had written a list of pros and cons on this issue, the conclusion being that ARIN can and should handle this task, adhering to certain conditions that would protect it from liabilities that may arise.
Discussion ensued on the potential liability issue that could arise should ARIN take on this role. It was agreed that seeking legal counsel would be prudent. RP stated that discussions on this issue would come alive later in the summer due to Board meetings and the IETF meeting. All agreed that the AC should draft something by the end of the month to take to the Board for their next meeting in July, giving the Board and counsel time to review it before then.
13. Discussion Group Report on Cable Open Access Policy.
RD reported that a draft had been sent to the public list and no substantial changes to or from the draft had taken place. All agreed that the next step would be for the discussion group to draft the language into a typical policy and then post it to the public list for further comments. CJW asked to join discussion group and it was agreed that she would be added to the group.
14. Policy Proposal Template.
BD reported that he sent the AC a list of criteria and requested they review and comment. Feedback he did receive was positive. BD stated that pieces of it ought to be on the website and in a template that someone may use to forward ideas of a policy to the AC. RP suggested using a presentation of Scott Bradner’s for incorporation into the template, and then asking Scott to also review the draft. RP stated that Scott would also be added to the discussion group list.
15. Review of Open Action Item List.
JAN03-10 AF, JS, BD
Policy issues from 69/8 experience. These three volunteered to work with ARIN to take the results of the analysis and decide what is a regional or global policy issue, or that issues are candidates for training and procedures that should be done within ARIN, with the results given back to the AC as a whole.
The Chair asked if this issue could be merged into the IANA/RIR discussion group and if the AC agreed that is no longer relevant as an open action item list. All agreed. CLOSED.
JAN03-11 RJ, AF
It was suggested that regarding routability testing, the RIRs could announce the space themselves and see if they run into any problems. AF stated that he has set up reachability tests, and could informally provide this information to ARIN to determine what networks would not be able to reach the space.
Update 5/8/03: RJ stated that he has emailed Avi letting him know that the next /8 allocation would likely be a 70/8 and if he was still willing, once ARIN made announcements to the mailing lists regarding the space, they could work together on some routability testing.
BD expressed concern that ARIN may not receive enough lead-time from IANA to get it distributed as widely as ARIN would like. RJ stated that ARIN does prefer to hold the space for 90 days before allocating from it, and that in the past it had been difficult to do so, but that has changed. He explained that recently he has not experienced any difficulty obtaining the resources requested from IANA – that the last few requests for AS numbers and /23s were turned around in matter of days. OPEN.
Regarding the allocation of IPv6 space to RIRs: AC to read RIPE document #261 on IPv6 in order to draft a policy proposal to post to the ARIN region.
This item has been merged into the IPv6 Discussion Group and it was agreed to close this action time. RJ stated that Thomas Narten had responded recently through email that he was available to do some work. CLOSED.
16. Any Other Business.
The Chair raised the issue of the maximum allocation policy – whether it was needed or not. RJ stated that when ARIN began, the inherited policy size was a /14, which presented no problems until years later when there were organizations using more than that in a 3 month time period - so the community agreed to increase the size to a /13. But, he stated that it doesn’t seem there is a need for a maximum allocation size policy, and that no other registries have one either.
The Chair asked what the AC thought of changing the policy to do away with this issue. All agreed it could be deleted, with the micro assignments discussion group agreeing to handle it.
There being no further discussion, the Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:17 p.m. EDT. MK moved to adjourn and CJW seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously.