Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 09 April 2008 [Archived]

OUT OF DATE?

Here in the Vault, information is published in its final form and then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.

Denver, CO

Attendees:

Leo Bicknell (LB), Chair
Marla Azinger (MA), Vice Chair
Dan Alexander (DA)
Paul Andersen (PA)
Cathy Aronson (CA)
Bill Darte (BD)
Owen DeLong (OD)
Scott Leibrand (SL)
Alec Peterson (AP)
Matt Pounsett (MP)
Lea Roberts (LR)
Robert Seastrom (RS)
Heather Schiller (HS)
Stacy Taylor (ST)
Suzanne Woolf (SW)

ARIN Staff:

Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst and Scribe
Nate Davis, COO
Ray Plzak (RP), President & CEO
Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services

ARIN Counsel:

Stephen M. Ryan

Guest:

Sam Dickenson, APNIC

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m. MDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for comments. RP requested adding an informational item on Caribbean Sector Meetings as agenda item 3.5, after approval of the minutes. The Chair added this to the agenda. It was requested that ST provide a report on the IPv6 Task Force. The Chair added this to Item 15. Any Other Business.

3. Approval of the Minutes

SL moved:

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for any objections. There were no objections.

The motion carried with no objections.

3.5 Caribbean Sector Meetings

RP explained that ARIN will hold these meetings prior to Public Policy Meetings so that results can be incorporated into the policy development process. He stated there will be two sector meetings this year, one in May and one in September. RP invited the AC Chair and three AC Members to attend the Caribbean Sector meetings; and, stated that AC members wishing to volunteer should email the AC Chair.

4. Policy Proposal 2007-14: Resource Review Process

RS moved:

This was seconded by BD. The Chair called for discussion. RS stated that discussion at ARIN XXI was mixed and the proposal was too much for people to understand. OD agreed that it should be revised. MP stated that during informal discussions he had with members indicated that people did not understand the rationale and this needed work. BD stated the AC needed to be careful crafting policy text and noted that Counsel had contributed to the conversation. SW stated it was clear that there was support for the idea, but revision is needed. SL noted that the AC needs to be on same page as staff.

RP stated that LN will work with the author. The Chair noted that there was confusion about what ARIN does, and does not do, with regard to audits; and that a presentation would be beneficial. OD and LN will work together on a presentation.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

5. Policy Proposal 2007-17: Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation

LR moved:

This was seconded by BD. The Chair called for discussion. MA noted concern about POC information becoming outdated, and the process of reclamation resulting in routing collision, specifically in the case of old acquisitions. A discussion ensued on current practices, as well as possible future practices, with concern being raised regarding legacy space gained as part of a merger. In such a case, this policy would create a strict time period for getting records up to date.

DA felt that the AC should work on the text and that the proposal should go thru another round. OD noted that the proposal would apply only to folks who use the policy, not everyone. SL agreed. SW noted that the text regarding the RSA should be removed. HS felt there should not be different types of reclamation. It is noted in the proposal text that legacy space would not be billed. OD noted that if the POC can not be contacted then the space is marked unreachable for six months. Hopefully the POC would see that, and contact ARIN. DA noted that there had been much debate among the AC on this proposal; and, suggested it be revised with the author. He further suggested that 4.6.4 is not policy, and should be removed. ST and PA agreed. MA stated the proposal needs to go back to the community.

OD moved to amend the motion to change “an” to “any” in section 4.6.6.
This was seconded by PA.

PA then moved amended to strike section 4.6.4, and send section 4.6.4 as a recommendation to the ARIN Board.
This was seconded by OD.

SL moved to amend to fix the numbering caused by removing those sections.
This was seconded by MA.

SW spoke against the motion saying the proposal itself should be revised. ST noted that there was already an amnesty policy in place. PA suggested an extended last call. OD and MP agreed.

The motion failed with 7 in favor, and 8 against (DA, CA, MA, AP, RS, HS, ST, SW) via roll call.

LR moved:

This was seconded by PA. The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

The motion was carried with 14 in favor and 1 against (LB) via roll call.

6. Policy Proposal 2007-21: PIv6 for Legacy Holders with RSA and Efficient Use

OD moved:

This was seconded by SW. The Chair called for discussion. CA felt this was a good way to encourage people to get and use IPv6. SL clarified that this would apply to those that might have a /24 or a /23.

This was seconded OD.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, and 1 against (MA) via roll call.

7. Policy Proposal 2007-23: End Policy for IANA IPv4 Allocations to RIRs

DA moved:

This was seconded by RS. The Chair called for discussion. DA noted that this proposal received support at the meeting. DA indicated that some objected to the non-need based allocation. ST stated that it would help LACNIC and AFRINIC, who feel that the transfer policy is not good for them. CA and BD agreed.

RS spoke against the motion stating they should instead be encouraged to go to IPv6. BD noted that this operationally makes no difference, except a willingness to be egalitarian to the world. MA was in favor, despite agreeing with RS, noting this has political issues attached to it either way one looks at it. SL disagreed with RS, stating that it does not harm anyone to give them more IPv4 space. DA noted that it was good to provide each RIR with a buffer.

AP was opposed, noting that allocations do not need to be made as /8s, they could be smaller. SL felt that would be too complex. RS noted that people in AFRINIC are concerned about transfer of space out of their region. RS liked AP’s idea of smaller allocations so that the RIRs’ pools would run out at the same time.

RP noted that global policy is in units of /8s. AP stated the AC is being called to rubber stamp this proposal. BD noted that long ago there was no policy of demonstrated need, and stated full support for the motion. OD indicated that there was clear community consensus for the proposal. HS opined that the proposal is trying to solve a political problem with policy text. PA, MP and SL agreed that the proposal was favorable. CA noted that the ARIN region has more legacy space than other RIRs, and that those other RIRs are going to need the extra address space.

The motion carried with 13 in favor, 3 against (MA, AP, RS) and 1 abstention (SW) via roll call.

To explain her abstention, SW stated: “The final decision is to be made by the ICANN’s Board of Directors. Even though I am a non-voting member of ICANN’s Board, and their role is strictly to review for process compliance, not the merits, I’m avoiding the appearance of conflict between that and my role on the AC.”

The Chair called for a 15 minute recess at 2:22 pm MDT. The Chair resumed the meeting at 2:37 p.m. MDT.

8. Policy Proposal: 2007-27: Cooperative Distribution of the End of the IPv4 Free Pool

BD moved:

This was seconded by PA. The Thair called for discussion. PA noted that the proposal was abandoned in APNIC. CA, BD, MP, and OD supported the motion.

SL moved to amend the motion to request the ARIN President advise the author of the petition process.

This was seconded by MP. BD accepted the amendment. AP noted that there is no formal requirement to have to inform the author of the petition process.

The motion was carried unanimously via roll call.

9. Policy Proposal 2008-1: SWIP Support for Smaller than /29

BD moved:

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for discussion. LR and MA were in favor of the motion. HS noted that on the PPML, and at ARIN XXI, there was community consensus for the proposal. OD agreed.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

10. Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal.

Counsel provided attorney/client privileged and confidential information to the AC at this time regarding this proposal.

ST moved:

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for discussion.

This was seconded by ST.

New motion reads:

ST felt the proposal needed further work.

SL moved to add, “The AC will work together to revise the proposal.”

This was seconded by MP.

New motion reads:

CA stated that the proposal still needed to be revised. SL agreed.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

11. Policy Proposal 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation

LR moved:

This was seconded by BD. The Chair called for discussion. SL and LR noted the sense of the room at ARIN XXI was that this proposal needed additional work. CA noted the need for a definition of ‘community network’, in order to determine if policy is needed or not. BD agreed and stated there was not complete comprehension.

LB felt the proposal should be abandoned. SL stated that work to revise should continue, it could be abandoned later if need be. BD agreed. HS recommend abandoning the proposal.

MP noted the need to send a message to the author stating that the AC wants to help solve the problem. MA was in favor of abandonment based on the fact community networks was not what the authors really needed as a solution. She felt that keeping a policy under this title is misleading and sends the wrong message. MA supported abandoning this proposal and having the handful of AC members that already volunteered to help the authors personally do so. She stated she wanted to notify the public of what measures are being taken to help the authors. OD felt abandonment would be wrong, and noted that the authors may withdraw the proposal. BD noted that ‘abandon and work’ and ‘revise and work’ are the same thing. PA agreed.

The motion carried with 10 in favor, and 5 against (DA, MA, RS, HS, LB) via roll call.

12. Special Rules of Order. [Appendix A]

CA moved:

This was seconded by LR. The Chair called for discussion. MA was concerned with “2b” of the Appendix, which allows members to speak for an unlimited time on each motion. The Chair stated the default was that everyone gets to speak twice, for 10 minutes in duration each time.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

13. Standing Rules. (Appendix B)

SL moved:

This was seconded PA. The Chair called for discussion. MP felt that changing the Chair in January was not the best time to do so, and he also suggested that allowing new members to share opinions would be better for planning purposes. PA felt that the election needs to happen much earlier. He questioned item 2 of the appendix, and asked if future meetings will always be on the 3rd day. CA suggested that the new Chair begin at the end of the January meeting.

RP explained that on 1 January, each year, there is a new AC; and that the AC can make it so that the old Chair conducts the January meeting. HS asked about the situation where the Chair is not re-elected to the AC. BD noted that the Vice-Chair would take over. As far as the list is concerned HS notes that new AC members are observers. OD suggested moving the meeting to February. RP stated that the sooner the AC meets and begins with training the better. AP stated that the point of adding the new AC members to the list was so they could familiarize themselves with the AC. He further stated that new members are free to email the Chair. PA stated he would like Item 2 to move back to the night of the 2nd day.

ST moved to close this discussion and call for a vote. This was seconded by MP.

The Chair called for a show of hands on the motion to close this discussion and call for a vote. The motion carried.

The Chair called the question on the motion to adopt the Standing Rules of Order.

The motion carried with 12 in favor, and 3 against (PA, MA, AP) via roll call vote.

14. Next Regularly Scheduled AC Teleconference

The Chair called for discussion on whether or not to hold the next teleconference on April 17, 2008.

ST moved

This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The Chair called for a show of hands, and the motion carried.

15. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

IPv6 Task Force Meeting. ST reported that there were both students and operators attending. ARIN had a booth there; and she felt it was a good outreach investment. RP noted that so many attendees were interested, that ARIN staff ran out of handouts and had to reprint more documents for people.

PA mentioned that polls at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting note the presence of other RIR staff in the room. He asked about their participation in the polls. There was a brief discussion of the polling method used during the Public Policy meeting. It was noted that although the members of other RIR staffs did not participate in the polls conducted in the meeting room, their numbers were included in the room population count. The President said that he would examine this matter and report back to the AC at its next meeting.

17. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 3:50 p.m. MDT. ST moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by CA.

Appendix A

ARIN Advisory Council
Special Rules of Order

After the call to order and customary welcome, the first item of business for each regular meeting is the discussion of the Draft Agenda for the meeting which, upon adoption, becomes the order of business for the meeting.
Rules for the Members.
Members may remain seated while making motions or participating in debate.
There is no limit to the number of times a member may speak on a motion.
Members may speak against one’s own motion.
Rules for the Chairman.
The Chairman need not rise while putting questions to vote.
The Chairman can speak in discussions without rising or leaving the chair, and usually votes on all questions.
The Chairman calls specifically for abstentions during each vote and the abstention will be identified in the record of votes, unless otherwise requested by the member.
Votes on fiscal matters or Internet resource policy matters are conducted by roll call vote.
Informal discussion of any subject not on the Draft Agenda is permitted while no motion is pending.

Appendix B

ARIN Advisory Council
Standing Rules

The ARIN Advisory Council holds a meeting by teleconference on the third Thursday of each month, unless there is a regularly scheduled in person meeting during the month.
The ARIN Advisory Council holds a meeting in person during the afternoon following a morning Member’s Meeting.
The ARIN Advisory Council holds a meeting in person during the month of January which includes AC training, and time for an AC workshop.
Newly elected AC members shall be added to the mailing list and invited to meetings as soon as the election results are published by ARIN staff; but may not participate in parliamentary procedures until the start of their term.