Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 May 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OUT OF DATE?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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.
- Leo Bicknell (LB), Chair
- Dan Alexander (DA)
- Paul Andersen (PA)
- Cathy Aronson (CA)
- Owen DeLong (OD)
- Scott Leibrand (SL)
- Matt Pounsett (MP)
- Lea Roberts (LR)
- Robert Seastrom (RS)
- Heather Schiller (HS)
- Suzanne Woolf (SW)
- Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst
- Thérèse Colosi, Scribe
- Nate Davis, COO
- Ray Plzak (RP), President & CEO
- Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services
- Stephen M. Ryan
- Marla Azinger, Stacy Taylor
- Bill Darte, Alec Peterson
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.
2. Agenda Bashing
The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.
3. Approval of the Minutes
“ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of April 9, 2008, as written.”
This was seconded by SL. The Chair called for any discussion. There were no comments.
The motion carried unanimously with no objections.
4. Proposal 2007-27: Cooperative Distribution of the End of the IPv4 Free Pool
The Chair stated that this proposal was abandoned after the ARIN XXI Public Policy Meeting; and, notice was sent to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML).
5. Policy Proposal 2007-21: PIv6 for Legacy Holders with RSA and Efficient Use
CA joined at this time (4:08 p.m. EDT).
The Chair called for any comments on this proposal. OD stated during the ARIN XXI meeting there was consensus.
“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXI Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt Policy Proposal 2007-21: PIv6 for Legacy Holders with RSA and Efficient Use.”
This was seconded by LR. The Chair called for any discussion. There were no comments.
The motion carried unanimously via roll call.
6. Policy Proposal 2007-23: End Policy for IANA IPv4 Allocations to RIRs
DA stated there were no discussions from last call posting. RS agreed.
“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXI Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt Policy Proposal 2007-23: End Policy for IANA IPv4 Allocations to RIRs.”
This was seconded by PA. The Chair called for any discussion. RP explained that this proposal will be incorporated into Section 10 of the NRPM, where global policies are located. The ARIN Board will adopt this proposal pending action of the other RIRs and ICANN. The proposal will be in hold status with the ARIN Board until such time.
The motion carried with 1 abstention (SW), due to her role as a non-voting member of the ICANN Board and a member of the ARIN AC.
7. Policy Proposal 2008-1: SWIP Support for Smaller than /29
OD stated that it was quiet on PPML regarding this proposal but noted broad support for it at the ARIN Members meeting.
“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXI Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed, recommends that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt Policy Proposal 2008-1: SWIP Support for Smaller than /29.”
This was seconded by SW. The Chair called for discussion. There were no further comments.
The motion carried unanimously via roll call.
8. Policy Proposal 2007-14: Resource Review Process
The Chair called for an update. RS stated he had not heard anything. OD, as author, stated he was working with LN on this proposal but given there was time to work on it, did not see urgency.
9. Policy Proposal 2007-17: Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation
The Chair called for an update. CA stated that the small changes have been made, and didn’t see a reason not to move it forward. She suggested moving it forward.
“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXI Public Policy meeting or on the ARIN public policy mailing list, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process has been followed moves that Policy Proposal 2007-17 be posted with minor revisions to Last Call.”
This was seconded by CA. The Chair called for discussion and clarified which version was on the table. All were in agreement on the version. HS felt the changes were very minor and did not address concerns regarding the need the for documentation on operational procedures. She stated that at the AC meeting in Denver, the AC did not move it forward and not much has changed.
OD asked if HS if she felt the AC should vote now, given that other AC members against the proposal were not on the call today. HS stated that during the AC meeting in Denver, the AC was split on their decision. SL stated that the AC thought last minute objections were raised, and wanted them posted to PPML, but no one has spoken up on the PPML. HS stated that, in Denver, MA brought up items that were not resolved, and MA was not on this teleconference.
DA asked of the people not on today’s teleconference, how many AC members had objected in Denver to this proposal. The Chair stated MA, AP, and ST voted against the proposal and were not on the call today. SW also clarified that MA had posted concerns about operational procedures. SW felt she herself understood the proposal better, but that the AC understanding it, and the community understanding are two different things.
SL felt it should be go through last call. PA suggested amending the motion to extend last call and discuss any objections so that the AC can make a decision. DA suggested delaying until the other AC members were on the call. RS suggested tabling until the AC’s next regularly scheduled meeting.
The Chair suggested the AC push the proposal to last call, and to Board, and strongly encourage ARIN staff to publish a procedural document.
CA stated that this is policy is “optional”. One would have to choose to use the policy. If one chooses to use it, ARIN will send the person information on what will happen. It is completely optional.
PA again suggested extending the last call period and getting input from the community.
RP stated that the AC can spark discussion on PPML without last call to get input from the community because the AC already has a disposition from the ARIN meeting to work with the author.
LR suggested to table the topic, and spark discussion on the PPML.
HS then noted a grammatical error in OD’s (the author) version of the proposal. OD stated she was correct. It was a grammatical error occurring between paragraphs 4.6.3 and 4.6.4.
LR stated that if there is a discrepancy, the AC should not move the proposal forward. The Chair agreed.
“The ARIN Advisory Council tables the discussion of this proposal until after discussing the rest of the items on the agenda, giving the author time to correct the grammatical error.”
This was seconded by SL. The Chair stated he would add this time to Any Other Business.
The motion carried with no objections.
10. Policy Proposal 2008-2: IPv4 Transfer Policy Proposal
SL reported that the next step on this proposal is to spark discussion on specifics.
MP stated, as a side-note, that he read a document related to an anti-spam project in process that states that a /16 was sold and not stolen. MP stated he would post the link to the AC to read.
OD stated he sent the grammatical corrections of Policy Proposal 2007-17 to the AC’s list, and asked the AC to check their emails and review.
11. Policy Proposal 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation
LR stated that she had sent the author an email but has not received a reply. OD stated that most of the relief needed was fee related rather than policy related; and the AC should identify what they need and how to help them. LR agreed that fees were a big part of the concern.
12. Minimum Allocation in the Caribbean Region
MP reported that one person stated on PPML that the text be cleaned up to look more like the rest of the NRPM. The Chair queried if it should be done before the AC accept the proposal or after. MP felt there was plenty of time to do it and that the proposal could be accepted before the text was edited. SW felt one advantage of accepting it now is that Caribbean meeting in Jamaica will be held next week and it could be discussed at that meeting.
“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled “Minimum Allocation in the Caribbean Region”, accepts it as written as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number.”
This was seconded by SW. The Chair called for any discussion. MP asked whether authors could vote on their own proposals. The Chair stated that they could, but generally they do not.
CA stated that when LN presented in Denver during the Open Policy Hour, the Caribbean region wanted assignment and allocation. CA noted that this policy is only for allocations. She felt if one was singly-homed, one would always be singly-homed, and would not need an assignment.
The motion carried with 2 abstentions (PA, CA) via roll call.
13. Paragraph #4, Standing Rules (Appendix A)
“The ARIN Advisory Council adopts the revised paragraph #4 of the AC’s ‘Standing Rules of Order’, listed in Appendix A, for all ARIN Advisory Council meetings. The Standing Rules of Order are to be posted on the ARIN AC Internal Web Site.”
This was seconded by SL. The Chair called for any discussion. LR noted this would not have any effect until end of the year when new members are elected. DA stated he felt it was fine the way it was currently written. He stated he had received comments at the RIPE meeting that so many in the ARIN region are very wordy in their policy text, trying to cover every scenario rather than the spirit of the intent. He felt this amendment was an example of that sentiment.
OD countered that prior to January (as new member), under an approach that resembled current rule #4, he was chastised for commenting on the AC’s list on administrivia instead of routing his comments through the AC’s Chair. Hence, he supported the amendment. SL agreed. PA suggested this should be tabled until the ARIN XXII face to face meeting, as it was not urgent.
The motion carried with eight in favor and three against (DA, PA, SW) via roll call.
14. RIPE (Berlin) Trip Report
DA provided a report to the AC’s list. He stated that highpoints of meeting were Randy Bush’s presentation and the Working Group on enhanced cooperation. SW thanked him for the electronic report he had sent to the AC.
DA also stated that an airline magazine on one of his flights had a light article on the depletion of IPv4 space and adoption of IPv6; and, found it interesting to find an article on the subject in such a publication.
On another note, DA felt the AC should propose the other side of the transfer policy environment – what happens if ARIN doesn’t have a transfer policy? What does ARIN have to do to avoid that? He felt ARIN should show all sides of the equation.
OD stated that a relatively small group is in favor of unrestricted transfer; a small group is opposed, and 85% are not sure. DA reiterated that the AC has never discussed the other side. LR stated that it is a bonanza for legacy holders, that there is a vast majority in our region, and that they would be fair game. DA asked if the AC could take on an anti-transfer proposal to be discussed in October. It was the sense of the AC that it could be done. OD felt an ideal one is the one currently in place.
The Chair posed if this should be a policy discussion or to start it through the ACSP suggesting something like ‘ARIN, you need to be more specific if a flood of illegal transfers takes place’. DA stated his initial reasoning for a counter proposal was a large topic, and the ability to track all the points is more manageable through the policy process than putting it to the list through the suggestion process.
The Chair agreed that a proposal was a good idea, and tasked DA with collecting information from other AC members if they were to volunteer.
15. Any Other Business
Resume Discussion of Policy Proposal 2007-17: Legacy Outreach and Partial Reclamation. The Chair asked the AC reviewed OD’s previous email reflecting grammatical changes. CA was not able to view but trusted OD made the correct revision. The rest of the AC on the call concurred with the revision.
The Chair called for comments. Discussion of how long of an extension was needed ensued.
“The ARIN Advisory Council amends the current motion by extending the Last Call period to June 17, 2008.”
This was seconded by SL. The Chair called for further discussion. There were no comments.
The motion carried with one against (HS) via roll call.
The President asked the Chair to send him the text to be posted to last call. The Chair asked OD to send to him the text, and the Chair would send a copy to the President. OD agreed.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:21 p.m. EDT. CA moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by PA. The motion carried unanimously.
ARIN Advisory Council
- 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.
- In order to create a smooth transition between AC terms, newly elected candidates will be added to the AC mailing list as soon as official election results are published by ARIN. Between the time when they are added, and January 1st when the new terms take effect, the candidates- elect may only observe the AC’s functions under the policy development process. In particular, candidates-elect may not participate in the discussion of policy proposals, or in any parliamentary procedures.
Candidates-elect may post to the list for administrative purposes, including: asking questions about the policy development process; parliamentary procedure; or, administrative functions such as AC meeting planning.