ARIN VI Members Meeting - Herndon, Virginia - 4 October 2000
Table of Contents
- Report of the Board Meeting
- Advisory Council Update
- Financial Report
- IPv6 Registration Fees
- Online Voting Procedures
- Nominee Speeches for Open Board Seats
- Speeches for AC
- ICANN/ARIN Contract Update
- Final Comments
Minutes of the Members Meeting - October 4
Ray Plzak opened the meeting at 9:00 a.m. and thanked Wayport for sponsoring the event. ARIN Board members in attendance were John Curran, Ray Plzak, Scott Bradner, David Conrad, and Scott Marcus. Advisory Council members present included Bill Darte, Mark Kosters, Bill Manning, Guy Middleton, Justin Newton, Hilarie Orman, Alec Peterson, Jeremy Porter, Ron Roberts, and Cathy Wittbrodt.
Scott Marcus spoke about the progress the Board has made on the process for making policy decisions, using mailing lists, etc., and indicated that Scott Bradner will draft a workflow chart.
Alec Peterson, AC chair, reiterated that the name-based virtual webhosting policy has been suspended pending review, and a mailing list will be set up for discussions. At Sunday's AC meeting, the Council focused on the issue of rapid depletion of AS numbers that we are experiencing. The AC is looking at potential engineering solutions, such as switching to a 32-bit string for AS numbers, and will be working with the IETF BGP working group.
Alec indicated that ARIN will be applying a maintenance fee to legacy holders for providing in-addr and WHOIS service. A request was made for ARIN to make a formal statement regarding the collection of maintenance fees, which would address issues such as responding to organizations that do not pay the fee. Alec responded that ARIN will try various methods to contact them. Scott Bradner pointed out that the Board has not yet approved this action and Richard Jimmerson added that this has not moved through ARIN's recommendation process.
Continuing, Alec indicated that ARIN will send email to the POC, use postal mail, announce address space, and contact their upstream provider. If no contact is made, ARIN will place the block(s) in a separate database for 1 year and then make a final attempt to contact the organization. If not successful, the space will be made available for other uses. John Brown asked that it be made clear that ARIN will not use this opportunity to make legacy holders justify the space they already have. Scott Marcus commented that ARIN will announce this discussion in various ways to give the entire community the opportunity to provide input.
Hilarie Orman, ARIN AC, asked whether organizations that are already subscribers will have to pay the fee. Scott Bradner's response indicated that a review of ARIN's fee structure is planned in the future. Bill Manning asserted that this policy is a long way from being formed. Scott said the board has not yet discussed reclamation. John Brown reminded the group that reclamation and charging a fee are two separate processes/issues.
To present ARIN's financial report, Bob Stratton, ARIN Business Manager, showed the recently audited financial statements for the corporation. He discussed the statements of cash flows, the statements of financial position, and statements of activities. He described ARIN's recognition of its cash flows using an accrual basis, where cash amounts are spread over 12 months. No discussion ensued.
On the subject of ARIN's IPv6 fee structure, Richard pointed out that ARIN does not want to discourage IPv6 allocations. He proposed to defer charging fees to current IPv4 subscribers for an initial IPv6 sub-TLA allocation (/35) for 2 years. Anne Lord indicated that APNIC separates its membership tier schedule for IPv4 and IPv6, but fees are blended.
To encourage its use, Hilarie suggested giving an IPv6 allocation to anyone who requests one. Scott Bradner remarked that ARIN should make allocations in line with network topology.
By a show of hands, an overwhelming majority was in favor of not charging IPv4 customers for their initial IPv6 allocation for the next 2 years. Whether to apply a technical trigger for reinstating fees after that time will be referred to the AC for discussion. Jason Redisch, Virtela Communications, asked about the status of subscribers who have already paid. Richard indicated that these fees will be refunded if the IPv6 fee structure is changed.
Susan Hamlin, ARIN Executive Assistant, described the timeline of the ARIN Board and AC nomination/election process. There were four candidates running for the two open board seats, and 12 candidates ran for four open AC seats. A request was made to begin taking statements of support for the Board and AC nominees on ARIN's website. Susan agreed to see to it.
Douglas Ayen, Scott Bradner, John Curran, and Gregory Hiscott offered their qualifications for serving on the Board. Ray announced that links for candidate support will be available on ARIN's website October 5.
Candidates for the AC, including Jason Redisch, Aaron Dudek, Barbara Roseman, Bill Van Emburg, Kevin Martin, Jeremy Porter, and Charles Smith, gave speeches on their experience and qualifications. Jay Colson, Avi Freedman, Derald Muniz, Gene Jakominich, and Gabriel Murphy were not present -- their bios were read to the members.
John Curran provided comment on the status of ARIN's contract with ICANN. The RIRs are working together on the same basic agreement, with varying differences. He also signified that the MoU for the ASO has been working well.
Until a contract is signed, ARIN will continue to hold ICANN support funds in an escrow account to show its intention of support. Questions still remain unresolved, such as the level of ICANN's authority, and selection of a resolution process. ARIN is drafting a response to ICANN, and expects this to move on to negotiations. Ray will serve as liaison.
When asked the difference between the ICANN making policies vs the RIRs making policies, Scott Bradner explained that RIR policies are generated at the grass-roots level and move up, through the ASO, to ICANN. However, ICANN policies are more of a top-down approach. John Curran added that ARIN works in the context of the community itself, while ICANN's context is smaller. Scott added that policies need to be successful among the people that must execute them. He suggested that RFC2050 may need to be revised in the future.
A question was posed: Is ARIN looking for veto power? John responded no, that our approach is to make sure that ARIN is included in the process fully, and that the bylaws recognize us properly.
An attendee suggested that ARIN should not encourage emerging RIRs to make local policies that enable service providers to "shop around" for IP addresses. John explained that to be recognized, a new RIR must sign the same MoU with ICANN that the other RIRs signed.
Ken Fockler commented that there needs to be a sense of urgency in working out the contract, because the government may keep extending the contract [which it recently did through September 30, 2001]. He characterized the ICANN as an organization that does not govern or regulate, but rather coordinates, although some decisions fall within a gray area between governing and coordinating.
John reassured the members that ARIN will have a contract with ICANN, but that the best interest of ARIN's members will be protected first and foremost. RIPE has responded with a revision to the proposed contract that looks good, so ARIN will be looking at it.
Ray asked if there were any final comments. One question pertained to the status of RWHOIS as reported at the Calgary meeting. Richard responded that there has been no progress to date, that engineering plans to look at it. There will be more information regarding RWHOIS on the mailing list and/or at the next meeting.
A special thanks was offered to Kim Hubbard for her efforts in the past, and to the ARIN staff for their work. The meeting adjourned at 11:30 a.m. EDT (GMT -5:00).