Your IP address could not be determined at this time.

Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council

Wednesday, 27 October 2010
Teleconference

Draft Minutes

Attendees:

  • John Sweeting, Chair
  • Scott Leibrand (SL), Vice Chair 
  • Dan Alexander (DA) 
  • Cathy Aronson (CA)
  • Marla Azinger (MA) 
  • Marc Crandall (MC)
  • Bill Darte (BD)
  • Owen DeLong (OD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • Stacy Hughes (SH)
  • Chris Morrow (CM)
  • Heather Schiller (HS)
  • Tom Zeller (TZ) 

Minute Taker

  • Therese Colosi

ARIN Staff:

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

Observers:

  • Chris Grundemann

Counsel:

  • Stephen Ryan

Absent

  • Rob Seastrom

Apologies

  • Bill Sandiford

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for comments. OD and the AC welcomed Mr. Chris Grundemann, recently elected to the AC for 2011, to the call as an Observer.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of October 8, 2010, as written."

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

4. Draft Policy 2010-10: Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post-Exhaustion

BD stated that this item had been moved to forward to last call and seconded by OD, at the AC’s last meeting, but had not been voted upon. The item had been tabled for further editing.

BD moved to discuss the motion to forward 2010-10 to Last Call. The Chair called for any objections to discussing the matter. There were no objections. The Chair stated that revisions have been made to this draft policy as follows:

  1. The second sentence of the Paragraph 2:
    "Eligible address space includes addresses that are not designated as "special use" by an IETF RFC or addresses allocated to or held by an RIR unless they are being returned by the RIR that they were originally allocated to."
  2. In Paragraph 4:
    "An RIR is considered at exhaustion when the inventory is less than the equivalent of a single /8 and is unable to further assign address space to its customers in units equal to or shorter than the longest of that RIR's policy defined minimum allocation unit."

The Chair called for discussion of these revisions.  BD reviewed the edits with the AC. He felt the AC could either move to Last Call with the original wording, or resume a larger discussion which could include DF’s transfer rights provision in section 6 or LACNIC’s recent statements, or the new /8 that was recently returned to ARIN.  Discussion ensued on various impacts and aspects of the policy.

The Chair stated that revisions to paragraph 2 would be discussed. BD suggested it be restructured to have bullet points as follows:

"Eligible address space includes addresses that are not designated:

  • as "special use" by an IETF RFC; or,
  • addresses allocated to or held by an RIR unless they are being returned by the RIR that they were originally allocated to."

He noted that the second bullet was confusing where it read “…held by an RIR unless they are being returned by the RIR that they were originally allocated to.”

Discussion ensued on the new structure and the word ‘unless’ vs. ‘if’ and how that would change the meaning and perception of the clause. The President stated that leaving the word ‘unless’ is operable language; the word ‘if’ means no space could be returned. 

SH expressed frustration in micro-editing the clause. SL felt the new structure was acceptable.

The Chair stated Paragraph 4 would be discussed. BD stated paragraph 4 revisions were made for clarification.  Discussion ensued on whether it should read:

“An RIR shall be considered at exhaustion when the inventory is less than the equivalent of a single /8, and the RIR is unable to further assign address space to its customers in units equal to or shorter than that particular RIR’s policy defined minimum allocation unit.”

The AC felt the wording ‘the longest of that RIR’s’ as stated previously above, was satisfactory.

OD suggested revisiting paragraph 2 revisions at this time, and re-stated changing ‘unless’ to ‘if’ and removing the word ‘not’.

HS suggested the following wording/structure:

“Eligible address space includes addresses that are:

  • not designated as "special use" by an IETF RFC; or,
  • addresses allocated to RIR's unless they are being returned by the RIR that they were originally allocated to.”

DF summarized for clarity what the clause should accomplish:  a) wants legacy space returned by original legacy holder or RIR; and, b) only IANA-assigned space can be returned by an RIR.

Regarding HS’s suggested language, the President suggested to the AC, the following sentence for consideration, which would negate the need for the second bullet: 

“Address space may only be returned by the issuing RIR.”  It was noted that the sentence regarding legacy holders, currently in the proposal text, would then follow.

The new Paragraph 2 reads:

“Eligible address space includes addresses that are not designated as "special use" by an IETF RFC. Address space may only be returned by the issuing RIR. Legacy address holders may return address space directly to the IANA if they so choose.”

It was the sense of the AC that this final version of Paragraph 2 was acceptable.

The Chair wanted a sense of the AC regarding Paragraph 4. He re-asked them if the current version was acceptable as written:

"An RIR is considered at exhaustion when the inventory is less than the equivalent of a single /8 and is unable to further assign address space to its customers in units equal to or shorter than the longest of that RIR's policy defined minimum allocation unit."

BD suggested adding “… /8 and ‘the RIR’ is unable to…” CM agreed.  The Chair stated that the words ‘the RIR’ could be added at a later time. He asked for a sense of the AC as to the language as currently written. It was the AC’s sense that the text before them was acceptable as written.

The motion to move 2010-10 to last call carried unanimously via roll call.

5. Policy Proposal 119. Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy

It was moved by BD and seconded by SL to accept Policy Proposal 119 Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy to the AC’s docket.

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

6. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. DF stated that he posted 2010-08 to the AC’s Wiki and requested they review the text so that a motion to forward to Last Call can be made at the AC’s next meeting.

ITU Plenipotentiary in Guadalajara.   The President provided an update of the meeting to the AC.

OD moved to thank Cathy Handley and Dan Alexander for their efforts at the Plenipot. There were no objections.

TZ stated he had been on the call in its entirety, but had technical difficulties, which did not let the AC hear his votes in favor of the motions made during the call. The Chair asked if there were any objections to counting TZ’s votes, although unheard. There were no objections.

7. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:16 p.m. OD moved to adjourn and this was seconded by BD. The motion carried with no objections.