Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council
Thursday, 26 February 2004
- Alec Peterson, Chairman (AP)
- Paul Anderson (PA)
- Leo Bicknell (LB)
- Ron da Silva (RD)
- Bill Darte (BD)
- Andrew Dul (AD)
- Sanford H. George (SG)
- Mark Kosters (MK)
- Lea Roberts (LR)
- Robert Seastrom (RS)
- John Sweeting (JS)
- Stacy Taylor (ST)
- Cathy Wittbrodt (CJW)
- Suzanne Woolf (SW)
- Richard Jimmerson, Director of Operation
- Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst
- Therese Colosi, Recording Secretary
- Kevin Martin
- Raymond Plzak
The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:32 p.m. The presence of a quorum was noted.
2. Agenda Bashing.
The Chair called for comments on the agenda. There were no comments.
3. Formal Approval of the Minutes of January 15, 2004.
CJW moved that:
"The ARIN AC adopts the minutes of January 15, 2004 as written."
This was seconded by MK. The motion carried unanimously.
4. Formal Approval of the Minutes of October 31, 2002.
RD moved that:
"The ARIN AC adopts the minutes of October 31, 2002 as written."
This was seconded by CJW. The motion carried unanimously.
5. Policy Proposal 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocations.
Since this proposal is transitional from the old policy process to the new policy process, a new motion is needed.
ST moved that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XII Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt Policy Proposal 2002-2: Experimental Internet Resource Allocation."
This was seconded by CJW. The Chair called for any comments. There being no further comments, the motion carried unanimously.
6. Policy Proposal 2003-3: Residential Customer Privacy.
This policy proposal is awaiting Board action. The Board will discuss during its next regularly scheduled meeting in March.
7. Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes.
RJ gave an update on the current APNIC meeting in Kuala Lumpur. He reported that discussions took place on IPv6 policy; with the community agreeing that there needed to be a globally consistent document and that each region should have its own regional policies. He stated that discussions showed interest in eventually converging the regional policies going forward into the future. Also discussed was the creation of an APNIC IPv6 guideline document which would be used heavily to help people understand the intent of areas of the policy document.
RJ further noted that the APNIC agenda items are available on the APNIC website. He noted it would be at least a week before APNIC's Minutes would be posted.
LR asked if the pieces of the policy that were continued to be discussed must involve the author. The Chair stated that the author can certainly be involved. BD suggested that the AC discuss the issue on its list and contact the author with its intentions, then incorporate the author's feedback. LR agreed, and stated that the working group would convene soon.
8. Policy Proposal 2003-5: RWhois Server Use Requirements.
MK gave an update stating that he will have the text by next week with changes incorporated and ready for last call.
9. Policy Proposal 2003-9 WHOIS AUP.
RJ gave an update stating that ARIN Counsel has reviewed the document and that ARIN staff has received it. He noted that Counsel's review comments were extensive and that Counsel felt more consideration of the text is needed. The document will be posted for the AC to review soon.
10. AC Utilization Discussion Group Update.
The Chair requested an update. AD stated that he sent a post to the PPML with no response. It was decided that further discussion on this issue would take place during Item #16.
11. Policy Proposal 2003-16. POC Verification.
AD stated that KM had rewritten and had posted the text very recently. AD said he would review and post it to the PPML next week for review again. He further stated there were no responses to his earlier posting to the PPML.
12. Discussion of Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process.
Discussion ensued regarding the process with RJ giving a briefing on the way the process worked and the three options the AC had for reviewing submissions. After brief discussion it was the sense of the AC that they further discuss the process on their list, and add it to the Agenda for their meeting in April.
13. Discussion of Unique Addresses for Private Interconnections Submission.
It was the sense of the AC that this submittal, and item #14, the Connective Private Network Allocations submittal, were similar submittals by two authors. Given this, the AC felt that the authors might work together to combine both submissions into one policy proposal.
The Chair called for volunteers to shepherd this action. ST, BD, RS, and CJW volunteered, with ST tasked with contacting the authors. The Chair requested the group keep all of the AC up-to-date on the progress of this issue.
AD stated that the AC would need the author's decision within the 10-day period of whether or not they want to combine their submissions. RJ stated that EB would send the AC and the authors the exact date of when proposals need to be posted to meet the 30-day deadline.
14. Discussion of Connective Private Network Allocations Submittal.
Discussed above under Item 13.
15. Discussion of Purpose and Scope of ARIN WHOIS Directory Submittal.
The question of whether this issue was needed was raised. After discussing, it was the sense of the AC that this submission did not need to be made into a policy. The Chair requested that SW and PA draft a response to the author explaining why the AC did not support the submission, and to remind the author that he has the right to petition under the new Policy Evaluation Process.
16. Discussion of Use of HD-Ratio for IPv4 Allocations Submittal.
Discussion ensued and it was the sense of the AC to send this submission forward and let the community respond to it on the PPML. The Chair requested ARIN staff to assign an identity to this submittal. RJ stated ARIN staff would assign it an identity, and explained that a note on behalf of the AC would be posted to the mailing list and website stating that the submittal was being posted as-is.
BD suggested that there be a statement included explaining the intent of the initial review of the AC portion of the process. He suggested stating that this is a valid policy proposal issue that merits community discussion and that the AC was formally forwarding it into the process.
All agreed that this language should be included with all submittal postings and thanked BD for his idea.
The Chair requested the AC to stay abreast of the discussion on the PPML of this submittal.
17. Discussion of Defining Utilization of IPv4 Addresses submittal.
After discussion, it was the sense of the AC that they did not support this as a policy, but to put this submittal before the community due to previous discussions in the community in favor of it. The Chair stated that since the AC did not support the submittal, they should enumerate their concerns when they post the statement that the submittal is moving forward. The Chair requested the AC Utilization Group to draft the concerns.
At 2:28 p.m. EST. RS needed to leave the call and requested assistance via feedback on his recent post to the AC list. All agreed.
18. Review of Open Action Item List.
OPEN ACTION ITEM LIST:
Cable Open Access Policy.
At the last AC meeting in September, it was agreed to drop this issue if no interest was shown on the PPML by the time ARIN XIII took place.
10/23 update: DA stated this was back on track and they were figuring out what needs to be addressed, with more questions popping up that need to be addressed.
12/18/03 update: No progress has been made. RD volunteered to discuss with CJW to put something to the list if there was a question to pose on the list. Update at next meeting.
01/16/04 update: RD posted to PPML with little response.
02/26/04 update: RD no response on the list. It was agreed to remove this item from the list. CLOSED.
19. Any Other Business.
The Chair called for any other discussions. BD suggested the AC should make a statement when posting decisions on submittals regarding that in accordance with the policy proposal process, the AC has three options that can be taken regarding submittals, and then indicate which one was chosen. The AC should state the mandate and the option, and state what they decided. RJ replied that ARIN staff would boilerplate text to this effect and send it to the AC for review. The AC agreed and thanked Bill for the suggestion.
RJ noted that ARIN staff would add a discussion point on the AC's agenda for the text that RS requested feedback on, if the AC wanted to advance discussion on it at their next meeting.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 2:32 p.m. EST. ST moved to adjourn and this was seconded by CJW. The motion carried unanimously.