Your IP address could not be determined at this time.

Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council

Friday, 20 May 2010
Teleconference

Minutes

Attendees:

  • John Sweeting, Chair
  • Robert Seastrom (RS), Vice Chair 
  • Dan Alexander (DA)  
  • Marla Azinger (MA)
  • Marc Crandall (MC)
  • Owen DeLong (OD)   
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • Scott Leibrand (SL)   
  • Chris Morrow (CM)
  • Heather Schiller (HS)
  • Tom Zeller (TZ) 

Minute Taker

  • Therese Colosi

ARIN Staff:

  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Nate Davis, COO
  • Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services
  • Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst

ARIN Counsel:

  • Stephen Ryan

Absent:

  • Stacy Hughes

Apologies:

  • Cathy Aronson, Bill Darte, Bill Sandiford

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments.  Chair called for an update from the Advisory Council’s (AC) workshop in Toronto to be added under Any Other Business.  SL requested an update on the discussion of Global Policy 2009-3 which was discussed this week at the LACNIC meeting in Curacao. The Chair added this under Any Other Business.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of April 21, 2010, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Draft Policy 2010-1: Waiting List for Un-Met IPv4 Requests

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXV Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, finds Advisory Council and Community support for Draft Policy 2010-1: Waiting List for Un-Met IPv4 Requests, with minor modifications.  The ARIN Advisory Council moves to forward to an extended Last Call of 20 days the revised version of Draft Policy 2010-1, as posted to the AC Wiki and the AC Mailing List."

The Chair called for discussion. SL explained that he wanted to see if the community would be in favor of revised text, hence the extension of the last call period. He summarized that the revisions submitted by OD and DF reflected ways to clarify minimum allocation size; and, made it clear that ARIN would fulfill the smaller request. He stated these revisions were in line with policy, and the discussions during ARIN XXV recently held in Toronto.

OD stated he is fine with these revisions and agreed they are minor edits, but felt it needed to clarify this situation: what happens if a customer requests a /12, and ARIN only has /15. If ARIN asks what the smallest size the customer will accept is, and they state a /20, which size does the customer receive? The President explained that on an initial request, ARIN needs to know the smallest allocation size a customer will accept. Some may want to be on a waiting list for growth because they can’t afford the transfer market. SL pointed out that one cannot use the transfer market, since they are restricted for a 3 month period. One needs to make sure the minimum allocation that one accepts will last 90 days, or one needs to request a bigger block. Discussion ensued among the AC regarding requests for the minimum vs. the maximum allocation size one can live with for the 3 month period.

DA stated that the single continuous range clause needs to be clarified. Since ARIN currently reserves ranges for ISP to grow into, this proposal could be enforced upon an organization while resources are still readily available. Because of this, he could not support the motion.  DF stated he was in support of the motion.

The motion failed with 8 against, and 3 in favor (DF, SL, TZ), via roll call.

DF urged the AC to assist SL in crafting text on which the AC could cast an affirmative vote. The Chair agreed.

5. Draft Policy 2010-2:  /24 End User Minimum Allocation Unit

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN 25 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 Policy Development Process has been followed, supports Draft Policy 2010-2: /24 End User Minimum Allocation Unit and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it."

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated that there was not much opposition on the Public Policy mailing List (PPML), and stated it was ready to move forward. MA and HS did not think it was a good idea. MA stated that she did not see it as big a problem as was stated at ARIN XXV; and felt it will increase internal routing tables as to how many would be added. HS felt a /23 would be an improvement, out of concern that /24's would prompt requests to providers for further de-aggregation.

The motion failed with 7 in favor, and 4 against (DA, MA, MC, HS), via roll call. 

Failure of the motion was pursuant to the AC's Standing Rule on Final Action of Draft Policies, which states "Any final action on draft Internet Number Resource Policy shall be made by the affirmative vote of the majority of the members of the full Advisory Council." The AC Chair indicated that he will work ARIN's Policy Analyst to have the Standing Rule posted to the AC Wiki.

6. Draft Policy 2010-4: Re-Work of IPv6 Allocation Criteria

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN 25 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 Policy Development Process has been followed, supports Draft Policy 2010-4: Re-Work of IPv6 Allocation Criteria and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it."

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated that this draft policy had support and there were no negative comments during last call.  DF stated he supported the text as written.

The motion carried with 10 in favor, and 1 against (DA), via roll call.

7. Draft Policy 2010-6: Simplified M&A Transfer Policy

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN 25 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 Policy Development Process has been followed, supports Draft Policy 2010-6: Simplified M&A Transfer Policy and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it."

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that there was strong consensus in favor with no objections during last call, and that this text was ready to move forward. 

The motion carried with 9 favor, and 2 abstentions (MA, HS), via roll call. 

MA and HS stated they could not vote fairly, due to a misunderstanding on their part.

8. Draft Policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 Assignment Criteria

DF stated that he has been working on posting a message to the PPML, but was waiting for last calls to clear before sending out ideas on what to do with this proposal. He stated he would be posting within the next week or two.

9.  Proposal 109: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements

MA stated that she had worked with Bobby Flaim, and what he is trying to achieve can be incorporated into this document which was written by Chris Grundeman. She's working with Bobby and Chris whom are editing the latest revision, and it will be sent to the AC within the next week or two.

DA felt it seems the text on the AC Wiki combines swip and utilization requirements, which complicates things and should be addressed separately.

10. Proposal 110: Preservation of Minimal IPv4 Resources for New and Small Organizations and for IPv6 Transition

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Preservation of Minimal IPv4 Resources for New and Small Organizations and for IPv6 Transition’’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."

The Chair called for discussion.  DF didn’t support proposal as written, but felt it contained things that could be salvaged regarding Section 4.10. The Chair suggested the AC post the reason for abandonment, and state that the AC would be willing to work with the author to revise and gain support for a new proposal. DF stated he would attempt to do so, but he had already attempted it on the PPML with not much success.

SL felt it would be better if it were separated into different proposals but felt that the author did not want to do that. He suggested a message to the author recommending the author split the issues, and resubmit portions for reconsideration.  OD agreed stating that tiny pieces of the proposal were not bad, but felt that the vast majority of the proposal was not functional. The Chair pointed out that this will become a draft policy if petitioned, and discussed at the next ARIN meeting.

MA asked if anyone thought reserving space in general is a poor idea. DF felt that reserving more space is not a good idea. He stated that few pieces are useful to help provide direction for already reserved space, but he could not support reserving more space for these purposes. CM agreed.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

11. Proposal 111: IPv4 Fragment Management Policy Proposal

Due to very recently receiving the staff clarity and understanding report, and insufficient time to review it, OD suggested the AC table this item until the next regularly scheduled AC meeting. The Chair called for any objections. There were no objections.

12.  Proposal 112: Utilization of 10.4.2 Resources Only via Explicit Policy

It was moved by SL, and seconded by DA, that:

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Utilization of 10.4.2 Resources Only via Explicit Policy’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that the staff clarity and understanding report indicated that this proposal would do things that were not functional. SL stated that the author meant to write the proposal in this way. He stated that because of that he moved to abandon it; and, that it ties hands and is not useful. He felt there should be a proposal that addresses the way resources are given out, not one that prevents allocations until someone figures out a better way. DF stated he felt it was a bad idea because the resources are diminishing daily, and if there is no other use for them, they should be given out.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

13.  Proposal 113: IPv6 for 6rd

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘IPv6 for 6rd’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket."

The Chair called for discussion. MA stated there was good response at ARIN XXV, and people think that this is needed. She stated that she had written a clear proposal and a more convoluted one – submitting the convoluted one to foster questions and have people come to their own conclusions. Modifications are being made, and will be submitted by next week. In general, she felt it was a sound proposal for the AC’s Docket. OD agreed and felt it needs to move forward.

DA was opposed feeling it was a solution in search of a problem. LN clarified that there currently was indeed a problem if one has an initial /32, and wants another for 6rd, they have to justify it under the current .9 for HD ratio, and it will not qualify.

DA stated that that did not change his opinion. He stated the cleaner approach would be a proposal that addresses potentially accounting for new technologies, not accounting for initial allocation. Creating a policy specifically for 6 rd technology is overly-complicated and unneeded. He stated this is filling a gap specifically in subsequent allocation policy.

The motion carried 10 in favor, 1 against (DA) via roll call.

14.  Proposal 114: RFC1918 as Initial Multi-Homed Criteria

SL stated that today, the author expressed their intention to withdraw this policy.

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘RFC1918 as Initial Multi-Homed Criteria’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that, in addition to author’s wish to withdraw it, the proposal contained difficult issues and it did not receive much support. OD felt the issue needs to be addressed, but not this way and supported the motion to abandon. DA agreed.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

15. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

A)  AC Toronto Workshop Items. The Chair stated that in the interest of time, this item can wait until the next meeting.

B) 2009-3.  This global policy was discussed this week at the LACNIC meeting in Curacao.  SL provided an update of the discussion at the LACNIC meeting stating that the LACNIC Community did not understand the problem ARIN saw with the policy.  Some clarification was provided in the meeting and Scott also sent an email to LACNIC’s policy mailing list to provide some additional context.

OD stated that it would be beneficial for ARIN to submit it to other regions and suggest it be adopted as global policy. The President explained that there have been open inquiries between the ASO AC and the NRO EC regarding what happens next as to: what freedom does the ASO AC have to discern common policy and submit it; what is global policy vs. local policy; can the policy specify local RIR actions. There will be an NRO EC teleconference next week and they will discuss this issue; however, the MoU makes it difficult for the ASO AC to work with disjointed policy. A better option would be for ARIN to change the text, or to work with other RIRS to introduce ARIN’s text in each region.

OD stated he would be willing to do as the President suggested. SL asked who to contact in the other RIRs to get this underway. The President suggested OD and SL reach out to the other RIRs. They agreed.  

C) AC Meeting Duration.  The Chair asked the AC to think about whether to keep their monthly teleconferences to 60 minutes, or to extend them to 90 minutes; and, to send him their thoughts.

16. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:37 p.m. EDT. It was moved by OD, and seconded by RS, to adjourn. The motion carried unanimously with no objections.