Your IP address could not be determined at this time.

Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council

Wednesday, 25 April 2012
Vancouver, BC

Minutes

Advisory Council Attendees:

  • John Sweeting, Chair
  • Scott Leibrand, Vice Chair (SL)
  • Dan Alexander (DA)
  • Cathy Aronson (CA)
  • Kevin Blumberg (KB)
  • Bill Darte (BD)
  • Owen Delong (OD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • Chris Grundemann (CG)
  • Marty Hannigan (MH)
  • Stacy Hughes (SH)
  • Chris Morrow (CM)
  • Bill Sandiford (BS)
  • Heather Schiller (HS)
  • Rob Seastrom (RS)

Minute Taker

  • Einar Bohlin (EB)

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Leslie Nobile (LN), Director, Registration Services

ARIN Board:

  • Paul Andersen
  • Timothy Denton
  • Paul Vixie

Counsel:

  • Stephen Ryan, Esq.

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:37 p.m. PDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments. 

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 08 March 2012, as written."

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

4. ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, noting that the ARIN community has successfully worked within the IETF to accomplish a shared reservation for IPv4 transition, abandons ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension as duplicative."

The Chair called for discussion. There was no discussion.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

Paul Andersen (Board Trustee) left meeting at this time (2:30 p.m. PDT).

5. ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIX 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, abandons ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."

The Chair called for discussion. CG noted there are many members in the community who did not want to be audited over reassignment data, and that there was no consensus on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), or in the room during ARIN XXIX. He believed it was time to abandon this proposal. SL agreed.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

6. ARIN-2012-1: Clarifying Requirements for IPv4 Transfers

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIX 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 ARIN-2012-1: Clarifying Requirements for IPv4 Transfers and moves to it to Last Call."

The Chair called for discussion. DA believed the draft policy should be sent to last call and address any other issues with another proposal. SL agreed, stating that 2011-1 by itself is desirable, as an Inter-RIR transfer policy is necessary, however, 2012-1 would be an improvement over 2011-1.

The President stated that the ARIN Board requested a final consultation and that it had occurred. He could not speak to what the Board would do next. It will take 60 to 90 days for staff to be ready to implement 2011-1. He would certainly report the status of 2012-1 to the Board when they considered the final consultation.

BD stated he was in favor of the motion. With regard to the terms "reciprocal and compatible", he noted that 'compatible' was explained at the ARIN meeting but there may still be an issue with the term 'reciprocal'. He queried as to whether the rest of the world would be looking for reciprocity and if it would open their space to be raided. He did ask folks from other RIR communities and noted that they did not say they were concerned.

DF was against the motion stated he did not believe the draft policy was ready, but understood the community wanted it to move forward. He requested being called last during the roll call vote.
The Chair requested parliamentary advice on the topic and discussion continued.

HS pointed out that a speaker in the meeting requested implementations of 2011-1 and 2012-1 to be timed together.

The President explained that the ARIN Board currently has Draft Policy 2011-1 recommended for adoption by the AC. There may be people waiting for this policy. Unless the AC tells the Board that the AC changed its mind, the President will ask the Board to proceed with availability of 2011-1 when implementation is completed. If the AC does not want 2011-1 to proceed, they should communicate that to the Board.

CM was in favor of the motion of moving 2012-1 to last call, stating that he attended the lunch table topic regarding 8.3 transfers. It was noted that 2012-1 fixed some of the issues of 2011-1. He believed 2012-1 should move forward as quickly as possible.

CG noted that when 2011-1 was discussed at the last ARIN meeting in October, there were AC members that had reservations on transfers with no controls. 2012-1 enforces those controls. He believed it was a good policy and should move forward. OD was also in support, stating that the policy makes transfers closer to the intent; and that it is a step in the right direction. He noted that recipient controls would be needed in another proposal.

KB was in support of the motion. He stated that there were two issues that did not have consensus and that the issue regarding the reciprocal nature could be removed in a follow-on proposal.

Speaking to DF's question regarding being called last during the vote, the President explained that roll call votes are called in alphabetical order, and that the Chair has the option to be called upon last to vote.  Any AC member may answer "Pass" during the roll call vote, and should be called on again later once the roll is completed.

CA did not think the AC should vote in this manner. OD agreed, suggesting that AC members vote their conscience at the time they are called upon to vote. KB agreed, stating it set a bad precedent.

The Chair called the vote. 

The motion passed with 13 in favor (DA, CA, KB, BD, OD, CG, SH, SL, CM, BS, HS, RS, JS) and 2 against via roll call (DF, MH).

BS moved to request that the ARIN Board to delay adoption of 2011-1 for 90 days, pending the outcome of 2012-1. This was seconded by OD.

The Chair called for discussion.  Counsel noted that ARIN knows of parties that are waiting for 2011-1 to be available. BS stated that the AC is trying to move 2012-1 forward and if it cannot, the Board can proceed with 2011-1. Counsel advised having 2011-1 adopted, even if it is not implemented. CM agreed, suggesting getting 2011-1 finalized, and then getting 2012-1 finalized. CG also agreed.

BS prepared to withdraw the motion, noting that OD would object. DA pointed out that at the May AC meeting, last call will be complete, and that 2011-1 will not be implemented by then. He believed this did not need to be decided at this time and could wait until the AC meeting in May.

KB asked which one draft policy the AC wanted to recommend to the Board? DF stated he was not in support of a motion to delay the adoption of 2011-1. It was already recommended, and believed it was a good policy. SL agreed.

OD was in support of the motion to delay as it provided a safety valve that the AC can review in May. He believed that 2012-1 was a better policy than 2011-1.

KB stepped out of the meeting at this time (2:58 p.m. PDT).

The President responded that if the AC no longer recommends 2011-1, they should send that message to the Board in clear terms.

HS believed the AC should ask the Board to consider the timing of the implementation. The Chair noted that the community had requested it.

DF believed that passing this motion could send the wrong message to the community. The AC has recommended 2011-1 for adoption. Let the Board do its job, they have heard the community's comments.

The Chair stated that during the discussion of 2011-1, there were many members of the community that were in favor. OD pointed out that during discussion of 2011-1, someone asked for 2012-1 to affect 2011-1.  CM believed that 2012-1 makes 2011-1 better. However, a two or three month delay would not harm anything. BS did not support the motion, and agreed with DA and DF. He pointed out that the AC noted it could modify 2011-1 by the time it got implemented.

DF stated that 2011-1 is good policy. The AC should not take flexibility away from the ARIN Board with this motion.  The Chair noted that the Board controls 2011-1.

DA stated that the AC needed to wait until May, noting that the AC could be forwarding 2012-1 to the Board by then. CA agreed, but believed the AC did not need to tell the Board to delay adoption. The AC could state that it preferred the two policies be implemented simultaneously.

OD believed that 2011-1 would be better than nothing, but given the likely timely approval of 2012-1, he considered it better to hold 2011-1 until 2012-1 completes its last call, and then the AC can act. The AC was advised there would be a long implementation, and they could revise 2011-1. OD stated he stood by the motion. HS pointed out that last call is normally 10 days. The Chair confirmed that this is a normal last call period of 10 days.

The motion was repeated to ask the Board to delay adoption of 2011-1 for 90 days pending the outcome of 2012-1.

KB returned to the meeting at this time (3:10 p.m. PDT).

The Chair called for a roll call vote.

The motion to request Board delay of implementation failed with 12 against (DA, CA, BD, DF, CG, SH, SL, CM, BS, HS, RS, JS), 2 in favor (OD, MH) and 1 abstention (KB, due to missing some of the discussion).

7. ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement

HS stated this should remain on the AC's Docket, as the proposal needed work. OD stated he would work on the text.

8. ARIN-2012-3: ASN Transfers

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIX 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 ARIN-2012-3: ASN Transfers and moves to it to Last Call."

The Chair called for discussion. SL noted the community was in favor, and that the AC should move this to last call now. DA was against the motion, noting there was a suggestion to create a bankruptcy policy, or perhaps add policy to the M&A policy - ideas that need more discussion. OD agreed stating that IPv4 was a real issue, but that this was not. 

RS believed it should move forward.  MH stated that all the technical objections were 'blown out of the water'. CM supported the motion, stating that the Whois data needs to be updated. He believed that was what was important. If people want to transfer ASNs, that is okay. BS agreed, noting that the legal assessment was in favor.

The President stated that there are organizations in bankruptcy that have ASNs they want to transfer separately from the address space.  Counsel indicated that there is a party in bankruptcy court seeking to transfer an ASN and is awaiting this policy. The President pointed out that ARIN would deal with such matters either way, and that the AC should do what it felt best.

BS suggested that this may be better served by a bankruptcy policy, but it could be advanced, and then modified at a later time.

KB was in support of this throughout, noting the community's consensus was in favor. Transfers are the will of the community. There is a need to protect what ARIN was designed to do.

CG was opposed to the policy, stating that there was one arguable use case, having an ASN that you like. He believed this 'silly', but noting comments Counsel had made, CG stated he would abstain.

HS believed it was the wrong thing to do, and that it would send the wrong message, stating that Pandora's box is not open because of IPv4 transfers. This is a 'pony'.

MH believed there is an immediate need for this policy with people who want to use it now.
OD stated there are exigent circumstances with IPv4, we don't have exigent circumstances with ASNs. How do we justify not opening this up to IPv6? DA agreed, noting that the ARIN XXIX floor count was not overwhelming. He noted that the Internet technical community makes technical decisions. There is no technical basis for this policy.

CM stated that ASNs can transfer today and it is acceptable today. ARIN should have the ability to do it.

RS stated (in response to an earlier query of where the line is drawn and 'is IPv6 next?"), that ARIN has a choice of engaging the courts on ARIN's terms, or trying to block them - in which case the terms will be decided entirely by the bankruptcy court.  A pending case involves an ASN. Someday there will be an IPv6 /32 in similar situations.  ARIN should make all number resources conditionally transferable, to avoid a potential showdown.

KB suggested a word change, wanting to make this be a 2-byte policy. MH considered this a major change.

DA stated he does not suggest abandoning this proposal, but did not want to forward it to last call. He believed there could be a better model and this is not an urgent matter at this time.  OD agreed.

MH pointed out that the community supports it. The operator community wants it, and that this will keep Whois accurate. It's technically sound and clear.

HS pointed out that stewardship is not about making people rich. This will change the overall philosophy. This will encourage sitting on a resource because it might become valuable. She stated she was against the policy and against sending it to last call. It is an issue of fairness, in that it will affect how resources are managed, returned, etc.  MH countered out that ASNs can be transferred today, and no one is getting rich.

The Chair called for a roll call vote.

The motion carried with 10 in favor (CA, KB, DF, MH, SH, SL, CM, BS, RS, JS) , 4 against (DA, BD, OD, HS) and 1 abstention (CG).

9. ARIN-2012-4: Return to 12-month Supply and Reset Trigger to /8 in Free Pool

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXIX 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, abandons for ARIN-2012-4: Return to 12-month Supply and Reset Trigger to /8 in Free Pool. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."

The Chair called for discussion.  RS stated the community seemed almost perfectly split on the policy - slightly in favor at the meeting, and slightly against on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), or vice-versa.  His conclusion was that it could remain on the AC's Docket, however, it would be overtaken by events.  KB agreed. OD was against the motion, noting it is an overall tie. CA stated she was in favor of the motion.

The Chair asked about a 'land rush'. The President asked staff if there had been a pick-up in the amount of IPv4 requests, to which LN replied there had not.

DF was in support of motion to abandon, agreeing it would be overtaken by events. CG noted that the yo-yo affect that this policy would create would be undesirable. The current policy is not a 'bug', but rather a feature. SL agreed.

The motion carried via roll call with 11 in favor (CA, KB, BD, DF, CG, SH, SL, CM, BS, RS, JS), 3 against (DA, MH, HS) and 1 abstention (OD).

10. Improve Communications Group (IC) Report

IC members: KB, BD, OD, CG.  KB stated that the goal of the IC is to present a list of items that the AC and ARIN staff can provide during the next ARIN meeting in October. KB called for the AC to post suggestions their mailing list.

11. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

Returning Space to IANA.  BD stated that there had been much discussion about what space ARIN would return to IANA. He believed it appropriate for the AC to make its own statement about this issue. He suggested a possible motion to the effect of:  "The AC advises the President of ARIN, and the ARIN Board, in it's interest to return all /16s and larger to the IANA…"

SH stated she was not prepared at this time to provide an opinion. KB believed it needed more community feedback. OD supported the idea and stated he would second such a motion. He noted that the AC is supposed to provide advice to the Board.

CA believed this should be a policy proposal, for example, all certain blocks should go back to the IANA. SL stated that there are two cases in which to provide advice to the Board: 1) proposals via the PDP, and 2) when asked by the Board for advice. The President stated that the Board is not expecting unsolicited advice, however the AC has the policy process. The Board expects the AC to produce policy, unless requested by the Board for specific advice.

BD asked if the Board would welcome unsolicited advice. The President replied the Board would certainly welcome it from the community, but it is not necessary for the AC to do so; and, it might be confusing if the AC gave advice distinctly separate from ARIN members. KB noted that split decisions on advice could be bad.

12. Changes to the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM)

The President stated that he would send the "Update on PDP Revisions" presentation to the AC's list; and, that the revised PDP documents had been sent to the AC for their review and feedback.

13. Other Business

The Chair asked MH to address the possible conflict of interest (COI) issue created by MH's status as a broker to transfer number resources.  MH indicated that this should be taken up with his legal counsel. The President indicated it was customary and usual for the AC to hear these matters directly.  MH again indicated it should be taken up with his lawyer. 

14. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:50 p.m. PDT. SH moved to adjourn, seconded by OD. The meeting adjourned with no objections.