Your IP address could not be determined at this time.

Meeting of the ARIN Board of Trustees

Tuesday, 19 March 2002
Minneapolis, MN

Minutes

Attendees:

  • Scott Bradner
  • David Conrad
  • John Curran
  • Lee Howard
  • Ray Plzak
  • Bill Manning
  • Scott Marcus
  • Dennis Molloy, ARIN counsel
  • Therese Colosi, Scribe

Chairman of the Board, John Curran, called the meeting to order at 7:27 p.m. EST. The presence of a quorum was noted.

Ray Plzak had the following additions to the agenda: CLEW Working Group; 6 Bone; and, v6 Roots. David Conrad requested that an ISOC update be added to the agenda.

The meeting agenda was reviewed and accepted with the above additions.

Formal approval of BOT Meeting Minutes (12/11/01 and 1/22/02)

Scott Bradner moved that the Board of Trustees adopt the minutes of the December 11, 2001 meeting as written. Lee Howard seconded the motion. The Chair asked for any further comments. There being no further comments, the Chair called for vote in which the motion passed unanimously.

Scott Bradner moved that the Board of Trustees adopt the minutes of the January 22, 2002 meeting as written. The Chair asked for any further comments. There being no further comments, the Chair called for vote in which the motion passed unanimously.

Engineering R&D

Ray Plzak presented the suggestion to the board of looking at dedicating resources to expanding ARIN staff slightly for Engineering research and development. He explained that over the past year the ARIN engineering department has become active in the IETF. As a consequence, they have become more involved in emerging and evolving technologies that apply to ARIN. It is time for ARIN to dedicate resources to this endeavor and expand the staff. This activity is within the scope of the corporate charter. All members agreed to this proposal. The Chair noted that no motion was necessary, but that the President was to examine the budget implications of this issue, and report back to the board. The President was also asked to provide information regarding near term activity in this area.

ARIN IX: Travel support requirements for Advisory Council

It has been suggested that one of the ways to foster increased participation from the Advisory Council is for ARIN to reimburse travel expenses for members of the AC that request such support. The current language:

Section 4. Compensation and Reimbursement. No Advisory Council member shall receive any compensation for services rendered or be reimbursed for travel and subsistence expenses incurred in the performance of their duties.

Scott Bradner moved that The Board of Trustees amend Article VIII, Section 4 of the ARIN By-laws to read:

Compensation and Reimbursement. No Advisory Council member shall receive any compensation for services rendered. Council members shall, however, at their request, be reimbursed for actual and necessary travel and subsistence expenses incurred by them in the performance of their duties.

The motion was seconded by David Conrad. A brief discussion followed on any impact to the budget and/or administrative overhead and it was decided that any impact would be minimal. The Chair asked for any further comments. There being no further comments, the Chair called for vote in which the motion passed unanimously.

Conflict of Interest - Remanded to Counsel to further modify the language

At the December 11, 2001 Board meeting, counsel Dennis Molloy presented suggested language based on comments made during the July 27, 2001 Board meeting.

Current language reads:

"No trustee may vote on any matter in which that Trustee, or any entity with which that Trustee is affiliated, has a financial or legal interest."

Proposed language reads:

ARTICLE VI

Board of Trustees

Section 15. Director Conflicts of Interests.

a. No Trustee shall be involved in a transaction in which he or she has a direct or indirect personal interest;

b. A Trustee shall have an indirect personal interest in a transaction if (i) another entity in which he or she has a material financial interest or in which he or she is a general partner is a party to the transaction or (ii) another entity of which he or she is a director, officer or trustee is a party to the transaction and the transaction is or should be considered by the Board of Trustees;

c. A Trustee who has a direct or indirect personal interest in a transaction may not participate in a conflict of interests transaction or vote to determine whether to authorize, approve, or ratify a conflict of interests transaction.

d. Transaction as used in subsections a, b, and c means to transact business and includes the conduct of affairs by any corporation that is not organized for profit.

See, Virginia Code, Title 13, Chapter 10, Sections 13.1-803, as amended, "Definitions" and Section 13.1-871, as amended, "Director Conflicts of Interests."

Scott Bradner moved to incorporate the modified language into the By-laws as an amendment. This was seconded by David Conrad. However, several additional modifications to the language were then suggested. ARIN Counsel agreed to insert these suggestions into the revised language. Due to this, Scott Bradner withdrew the motion to adopt the modified language as it was until Counsel had made the additional modifications. This action was tabled until the next regularly scheduled meeting.

Definition of ARIN Member

Ray Plzak explained that at the December 11, 2001 meeting of the Board, staff was asked to research and make recommendations for developing written policy concerning the definition of an ARIN member. Staff is continuing to research this issue. At question is the current practice and the impact of multiple maintainer IDs/multiple memberships on voting. Staff analysis will be completed following the April ARIN meeting. Volunteers Bill Manning and David Conrad will then assist in drafting a proposal. A draft will be presented to the Board for consideration at the next regularly scheduled meeting.

Role of the ARIN Advisory Council

At the December 11, 2001 meeting of the Board, the President was asked to incorporate comments from members of the Board about the role of the AC and send it to the AC for review. The President reported that this was a work in progress and that a final draft of role and function document would be presented to the Board at its next regularly scheduled meeting. A general discussion of the role and functions of the AC then ensued. Ray Plzak noted that the AC had been a lot more active lately. John Curran noted that since one of the purposes of the preparation of the document was to encourage the members of the AC to be more active that maybe this action was no longer necessary and that the description in the ARIN By-laws would be sufficient. It was the sense of the Board that this was indeed the case and that no further action was necessary on this subject.

ARIN X Meeting

ARIN is currently working with MERIT to secure a host for a back-to-back meeting this fall. NANOG will be held Sunday afternoon through Tuesday, followed by ARIN's two days of public policy meetings on Wednesday and Thursday and the half-day Members meeting on Friday. Before and after the daily NANOG sessions, as well as during breaks, ARIN will make a available a registration services help desk as well as a "learning center" with training materials on ARIN's templates.

ARIN is looking at late October for this week-long event. However, until a sponsor commits, the date and location are up in the air. The Board is reminded to keep October schedule open for ARIN X/NANOG joint meeting, and to let ARIN staff know of current conflicts during October. The Board indicated a willingness to provide the necessary support to make this meeting happen.

Summer Board Meeting

Since the Board in the past has indicated that there is less of an advantage to holding board meetings as non-US IETF meetings, it was decided that the next regularly scheduled ARIN Board meeting would be held at the ARIN offices in Chantilly, VA on Tuesday, July 9, 2002 at 12:00 noon.

Single Signature Limit

Scott Bradner moved that the Board of Trustees delegate to the President the authority to be the sole signatory on all checks that are in the amount of $25,000 or less; those in excess of $25,000 shall bear the signatures of the President and the Treasurer. David Conrad seconded the motion. Ray Plzak presented background information on this topic.

The Chair then asked for any comments. Bill Manning asked if the proposed amount would be enough. Ray Plzak answered affirmatively and explained that an increase of this type would not happen again for a few years. There being no further comments, the Chair called for vote in which the motion passed unanimously.

There was then a 10-minute break, after which the Chair once again called the meeting to order.

Expenditure Authorization Process

Lee Howard updated the Board on the manner in which he intends to manage the expenditure authorization process for matters that require his approval. Ray Plzak expressed his appreciation to the Board regarding Lee's involvement in this position. Ray stated that Lee had visited the ARIN offices weekly to go over procedures with ARIN's Director of Business, Bob Stratton. Bill Manning suggested that these procedures be written down and a checklist created for whomever held this position on the Board. Ray Plzak stated that staff would draft a document, and present it to the Finance Committee for comment.

Interim Year Audit

Lee Howard presented a draft of the audit in light of the fact that the auditors were not able to complete the final audit in time for this meeting. Lee stated he would provide a report to the Board and have printed financials in time for the upcoming ARIN IX meeting. All agreed that it could be also discussed telephonically.

It was noted that the amount budgeted in escrow for ICANN had changed. It was explained that this amount had been based on the calculation from the prior year. The total RIR amount decreased by 1% due to changes in the revenue of the three RIRs, and the amount of actual allocated address space, which had been estimated at a higher amount.

Legal fees went up directly linked to the drafting of the RIR-ICANN contract, lease negotiations on new office space, and legal defense for one bankruptcy court case in Arizona.

Renewals were shown as down. Ray Plzak stated that that reduction occurred as of January 1, 2002. Lee Howard explained that it was due to slow collections, mergers and liquidations.

Scott Bradner then asked that the President discuss v6 fees at the next meeting.

The amount of $24,000 for the AC's travel was discussed and it was stated that that would be in the budget for next year, providing the AC travel for 2 meetings.

The Chair asked for any other questions. There were no further questions

The ARIN Election Process

The President requested that the Board review this process. Discussion ensued with ARIN Counsel stating that he did not see any problems with the ARIN process as it currently stands and is executed. The Board concurred. Ray Plzak suggested that the process called for in the By-laws should be documented to describe the process and procedures that have been established to ensure the privacy, validity, and accuracy of all ballots. The Board agreed with this, and asked the President to prepare such a document.

The Chair asked for any other questions. There were no further questions.

LACNIC

The Board discussed providing support to the emerging LACNIC. The following decisions were made:

Scott Bradner moved that the Board of Trustees authorize the President to disperse to LACNIC thirty-five (35) percent of the revenue derived from the registration activities in the Latin American region for the year 2001. Scott Marcus seconded the motion.

The Chair asked for any further comments. It was asked if LACNIC was prepared to receive money. Ray Plzak stated that LACNIC has a bank account and credit card transaction ability currently in place. There being no further comments, the Chair called for vote in which the motion passed unanimously.

Scott Bradner moved that the Board of Trustees authorize the President to disperse to LACNIC thirty-five (35) percent of the revenue derived from the registration activities in the Latin American region during the year 2002 until such time as LACNIC receives final recognition from ICANN. Ray Plzak seconded the motion.

Scott Marcus suggested a friendly amendment to include a start date: "…from January 1, 2002 until either such time as LACNIC receives final recognition from ICANN, or December 31, 2003 which ever comes first." Scott Bradner accepted it as such.

The amended motion read: The Board of Trustees authorizes the President to disperse to LACNIC thirty-five (35) percent of the revenue derived from the registration activities in the Latin American region from January 1, 2002 until either such time as LACNIC receives final recognition from ICANN, or December 31, 2003 which ever comes first.

The Chair then called a vote, and the motion carried unanimously.

CLEW

Ray Plzak stated that there was a proposal to dissolve the CLEW working group and that the CLEW Chair was in favor of the dissolution as well. Ray stated that ARIN staff can handle the tasks once the process is institutionalized. The Chair of the CLEW will propose the dissolution of the group at the ARIN IX meeting.

The Internet Software Consortium (ISC) Funding

David Conrad and Bill Manning absented themselves from this discussion and from voting as they both had dealings with the ISC.

The ISC has asked ARIN to become a member of the ISC Forum. Discussion ensued and the Board decided to join the ISC, but not to commit to more involvement without consulting ARIN members first.

Bill Manning and David Conrad re-joined the meeting.

ISOC Update

David Conrad provided an update on the ISOC organization. After brief discussion, the Board decided that it would not be inappropriate for the President of ARIN to become a member of the ISOC Board if so nominated.

A five-minute break ensued. The Chair then called the meeting to order.

Industry Specific Registry

ARIN has received several requests over the past year from organizations that want to act as the address space manager for a specific industry - notably the emerging wireless industry. The Board discussed the matter with David Conrad suggesting that the organizations be referred to the Public Policy meeting that occurs prior to the ARIN IX member meeting to state their case. All board members were in agreement.

6Bone Discussion

Ray Plzak stated that there had been discussion over the last several months concerning the inclusion of the 6Bone address space in the v6.arpa domain. He noted that RFC 3152 states that the v6.arpa domain has been delegated by the IAB to contain only the IPv6 address space that is allocated by the Regional Internet Registries. The Board discussed this and concluded that Scott Bradner would draft a message to the IAB Chair suggesting that it undertake a review of RFC 2471 in regards to this matter.

List filtering

Recently there have been inappropriate postings to ARIN managed mail lists, one of which is a global policy list. ARIN has an AUP for its mailing lists, referenced herein as Appendix A. The question was raised that should this AUP be applied to the global list as well? It was decided that ARIN would speak with RIPE and APNIC to inform them that applying this to global lists is ARIN's intention. No further discussion ensued.

IPv6 Policy

The discussion on the allocation of IPv6 space from the registries to ISPs continues. It will be discussed at the next ARIN public policy meeting. The text shown in Appendix B is the compromise language that has been accepted by the APNIC region. This has been provided as information for board. No discussion necessary.

IPv6 Addresses for Root Servers

Ray Plzak stated that the RSSAC is now considering the issue of IPv6 addresses for the root servers. He reminded the Board that there was a IPv6 micro allocation policy in process and that it would be discussed at the ARIN IX meeting. Ray also stated that JPNIC had sent a proposal to the Root Server System Advisory Committee (RSSAC). He noted that ARIN could have a micro allocation policy in place by May that would provide the RSSAC with a source of IPv6 address space for root servers.

David Conrad noted that this issue was badly addressed in v4 and that this was a good opportunity to perfect it in v6. Ray stated that he had provided the RSSAC with information concerning the status of the micro allocation policy in the ARIN region.

The Chair asked for any further comments. There were no further comments.

There was a 10-minute break, after which the Chair called the meeting to order.

RIR Role in ICANN Reform

Scott Marcus recused himself from voting on any matter relating to ICANN reform, but would participate in the discussion. The Board then discussed the reform proposal and its relationship to ARIN, the RIRs, and the Addressing Community. The discussion produced no motions that required a vote.

Adjournment

Scott Bradner moved to adjourn the meeting at 1:12 a.m. EST. This was seconded by Ray Plzak. This was passed by unanimous vote.

APPENDIX A

ARIN's Mailing List Acceptable Use Policy (AUP)

ARIN's mailing lists are made available to gain input from the IP community and to facilitate discussions regarding IP address policy issues. Any discussions posted to these lists must relate to the issues and policies generally considered to be current and relevant, affecting a broad scope of users and networks.

Interested parties have established the following guidelines to allow for effective exchange of information in a responsible way. These guidelines must be strictly adhered to in order to keep the mailing lists an effective open forum.

All correspondence must relate specifically to IP policy issues. Postings not directly related to IP addressing policies are prohibited.

Independent issues not affecting the larger IP community are not appropriate, nor are comments of a personal nature.

Use or distribution of others' comments for any purpose other than to discuss relevant issues pertaining to IP policies is not permissible.

Any unprofessional or confrontational comments showing a lack of respect, such as using foul or abusive language or attacking someone's character, will not be tolerated.

Overuse of the privilege, flooding of email messages, forwarding of bulk email, or any other form of spamming is strictly prohibited. Marketing of products or advertising of any kind, whether for business or employment purposes, is not allowed.

The promotion of political views is not appropriate.

Attempts to obtain email addresses for any purpose other than for which the list was designed is prohibited.

Violators of any of the above guidelines will be contacted and asked to adhere to the policy. If a user persists in violating the policy, the individual will be taken off the list. Thank you for your participation and cooperation.


APPENDIX B

5.2.1. Initial allocation criteria

In order to reduce address space fragmentation and increase the likelihood that routes can be aggregated, end sites should obtain address space from their connectivity providers as opposed to directly from RIR/NIRs. Having RIR/NIRs assign address space directly to end sites in general is known to lead to unscalable routing, since the routes to those end sites will not aggregate. Thus, allocations of large address blocks (i.e., much larger than /48s) are made to organizations that assign /48s to organizations other than itself, and also provide connectivity for those organizations.

  • Organizations requesting address space must be an LIR. (See Section 2.6).
  • Organizations requesting address space must not be end sites.
  • Organizations requesting address space will provide connectivity for the organizations it has assigned /48s to by advertising such connectivity through the single aggregate allocated to that organization.
  • Organizations requesting address space have a plan for assigning address space (e.g., /48s) to other organizations, with the number of such assignments likely to result in at least 200 such assignments over the next two years.
  • Organizations who are granted initial allocations, but after two years no longer satisfy the requirements above, are subject to having their allocations revoke