Your IP address could not be determined at this time.

Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council

Thursday, 21 February 2008
Teleconference

Minutes

Attendees:

  • Leo Bicknell (LB), Chair   
  • Marla Azinger (MA), Vice Chair     
  • Dan Alexander (DA)           
  • Cathy Aronson (CA)
  • Owen DeLong (OD)       
  • Scott Leibrand (SL)        
  • Lea Roberts (LR) 
  • Stacy Taylor (ST)      
  • Suzanne Woolf (SW)

ARIN Staff:

  • Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst
  • Therese Colosi, Scribe
  • Nate Davis, COO
  • Ray Plzak (RP), President & CEO

ARIN Counsel:

  • Stephen M. Ryan

Apologies:

  • Bill Darte, Matt Pounsett, Heather Schiller

Absent:

  • Paul Andersen, Alec Peterson, Rob Seastrom

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. The President mentioned he would need to leave the call early. The Chair moved Agenda Item 18, to be discussed at this point in time at the request of the President.

18. ARIN AUP Mail Lists Report

Counsel provided an attorney/client privileged report to the AC.

3. Approval of the Minutes

ST moved:

"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of January 17, 2008 as written."

This was seconded by CA.  The Chair called for discussion.

The motion carried unanimously with no objection.

4.  Policy Proposal 2007-21: PIv6 for Legacy Holders with RSA and Efficient Use

A majority of the Board members felt that the discussion of the difference between "utilization of all direct IPv4 assignments" vs. "utilization of a direct IPv4 assignment" should have been submitted to PPML for further discussion among the community in lieu of moving this proposal to last call and had remanded it to the AC.

SW stated that the difference in the language the Board noted is significant enough that this proposal should go through one more ARIN meeting, upcoming in Denver. She stated that the AC has agreed on what the text should be to resolve ambiguity between the different versions viewed.

OD moved:

"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XX Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, finds that Policy Proposal 2007-21 needs major revisions. The AC or author will redraft this policy proposal for discussion at the next ARIN Public Policy Meeting."

This was seconded by SW. The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

5.  Policy Proposal: Loophole Closure for 2007-21

OD moved:

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled "Loophole Closure for 2007-21", does not accept the proposal. The AC feels that the proposal is redundant at this point. The AC requests that the President advise the author of the availability of the petition process."

This was seconded by SL. The Chair called for discussion. The Chair asked if it would make sense for the authors to withdraw this proposal instead. It was the sense of the AC that that would be acceptable.  The author, OD, agreed to withdraw the proposal in writing to the AC. The Chair stated the motion was moot.

6. Policy Proposal 2007-22: Expand Timeframe of Additional Requests

MA stated that no one had responded on the PPML. She interpreted this as no one disagreeing with the proposal. DA agreed with MA's interpretation. EB stated last call had ended for this proposal. The Chair stated that the next step is whether or not to decide to forward the proposal to the Board.

MA moved:

"The ARIN Advisory Council having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Policy Proposal: 2007-22: Expand Timeframe of Additional Requests' proposes that it be moved forward to the ARIN Board of Trustees for ratification."

This was seconded by ST. Chair called for discussion.  There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call (n-0-1) (Abstain: DA).

7.  Policy Proposal: 2007-14: Resource Review Process

The Chair stated that there has been no update from the authors, and there have been no revisions since the last meeting. He asked if it should it be on agenda for Denver. The President asked if the authors refused to revise the proposal.  The Chair stated they did not refuse, but no action has been seen. OD, as one of the authors, stated he needed to get back to the other author and would try to get revisions out by the March 7 deadline.

The Chair suggested abandoning this proposal by the deadline if no action has been seen by then. The President explained that under current IRPEP, the proposal has to go through to the next ARIN meeting in April, unless the author refuses to do anything. If one of the authors cannot get the revision done, the AC can abandon the proposal by the deadline.

LR felt it was better for the author to withdraw the proposal if it could not be revised. Many AC members agreed this would be the better option.

The Chair stated the AC will have one more teleconference after the 30 day cutoff.  If the author has not responded, he asked if the proposal could be removed from agenda. The President responded yes, with the author having the option to put the proposal through the petition process. The proposal would not be discussed in Denver.

The Chair stated that no action would be needed at this time. He explained that one of the authors will need to either revise or withdraw this proposal by the March 7 deadline; and, if that does not happen, the AC could chose to abandon it at their next teleconference in March.

8. Policy Proposal: 2007-16: IPv4 Soft Landing

There was no formal update at this time, as the shepherds were not available at this meeting. However, OD stated that he noticed, per the PPML, that the proposal had not been revised since the last ARIN meeting. SL noted that the author had posted on another mailing list that he was not convinced that it is worthwhile to continue with it. The President stated that the AC should contact the author to see if he wants to withdraw this proposal. The Chair stated he will request that the shepherds contact the author.

9.  Policy Proposal: 2007-17: Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation

CA stated that OD (author) sent out an update on this proposal. It will continue through the process. OD stated he tried very hard to address all feedback concerns.

10. Policy Proposal: 2007-23: End Policy for IANA IPv4 Allocations to RIRs

DA stated that an updated version of this proposal was posted on the PPML. He stated there were only 2 posts: 1 for and 1 against. It will continue through the process.

11. Policy Proposal: 2007-24: IPv6 Assignment Guidelines

This proposal has been formally withdrawn by the author.

12. Policy Proposal: 2007-26: Deprecate Lame Server Policy

CA stated that this proposal was just formally withdrawn by the author (OD) on the PPML.

13. Policy Proposal: 2007-27: Cooperative Distribution of the End of the IPv4 Free Pool

The Chair stated that this proposal will be presented in Denver. He noted that there had been no discussion or changes on the PPML for this proposal to date.

14. Policy Proposal: SWIP Support for Smaller than /29

OD stated that there was good community support for this proposal. ARIN staff also felt it would not be a major impact on workload if this proposal were to be accepted. OD stated that as shepherds he and BD personally did not agree that this proposal was worthwhile.

OD moved:

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled "SWIP Support for Smaller than /29", accepts it as written as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number."

This was seconded by SL. The Chair called for discussion. SL felt it was an acceptable proposal. The Chair felt it could be written in a way that was simpler to read. He explained that once it's understood, it's clear; but that it takes a couple readings to understand it. OD stated the author would probably be amenable to revising the text and asked if anyone has suggestions, to please pass it to the author through the PPML. He felt that revised text could be out before the deadline of March 7.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

15. Policy Proposal: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal

SL moved:

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled "IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal", accepts it as written as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number."

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for discussion.  OD thanked the AC members who attended the NANOG 42 Birds of a Feather (BoF) meeting, and asked for any notes taken to be sent to him so he can post them to the PPML and AC's mailing list. SW stated that she had taken some notes and would forward them to OD.  SW was surprised there was not more opposition. The Chair stated that he had gotten the feeling that people had not formulated an opinion on the proposal yet.

OD stated that people did feel that the safeties in the proposal were worthwhile.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

16. Policy Proposal: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation

LR stated that a template was sent out, and there was no discussion on the PPML, but some on the AC's list.

There was a discussion regarding the fee portion of the proposal. OD stated that he had made a suggestion through the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) regarding not-for-profit, 501(c)3 organizations; and, asked if the President had anything to report regarding the suggestion. The President stated that the ARIN Board Finance Committee (FinCom) had discussed it today, and thought that it was something that needed to be considered. Staff has been tasked to perform an analysis of options regarding the suggestion. This analysis will be provided to the ARIN Board through the FinCom for consideration.

Discussion ensued on the proposal, and it was the sense of the AC that any revisions that needed to be done must be done in time to get the proposal on the agenda for the ARIN meeting in Denver in April.

OD moved:

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled "Community Networks IPv6 Allocation", accepts it as written on the condition that the author modify the proposal by the deadline of March 7, to bring it in line with the ARIN policy process as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number with the understanding that it will not be discussed in Denver should the author fail to revise the proposal by March 7 deadline."

This was seconded by LR. The Chair called for discussion. SL suggested a friendly amendment to strike ‘as written' from the motion. The Chair called for any objections. There were no objections. The new motion reads:

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled "Community Networks IPv6 Allocation", accepts it on the condition that the author modify the proposal by the deadline of March 7, to bring it in line with the ARIN policy process as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number with the understanding that it will not be discussed in Denver should the author fail to revise the proposal by March 7 deadline."

The motion carried with 8 in favor and one against (ST).

17. NANOG 42 Trip Report

ST provided a report stating it was a good meeting in terms of content with excellent talks from Renesys Corp. regarding routing after the cable was cut in the gulf, and after earthquakes happened in Taiwan. She also felt the BoF went very well; and that people were very on board with the transfer idea. SW stated the BoF had a very good turn out and noted that there was no sense of opposition to the transfer idea. She also felt that the fact that AC members held the BoF and people were able to interact was very positive.

18. ARIN AUP Mail Lists Report

Discussed under Item 2 above.

19. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. Counsel provided an attorney/client privileged report to the AC.

20. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:00 p.m. EST. ST moved to adjourn and CA seconded. The motion carried unanimously.