Thursday, 21 July 2005
- Ron da Silva (RD), Chair
- Paul Andersen (PA)
- Marla Azinger (MA)
- Leo Bicknell (LB)
- Andrew Dul (AD)
- Alec Peterson (AP), Vice Chair
- Alex Rubenstein (AR)
- John Sweeting (JS)
- Stacy Taylor (ST)
- Cathy Wittbrodt (CW)
- Suzanne Woolf (SW)
- Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst
- Nate Davis, Director of Operations
- Susan Hamlin, Director of Member Services (Recording Secretary)
- Ray Plzak (RP), President & CEO
- Stephen Ryan
- Lea Roberts, Mark Kosters
- Robert Seastrom, Bill Darte
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted.
2. Agenda Bashing
The Chair called for any comments. The Chair proposed that two additions to be added under agenda Item 8: Updates on Policy Proposal 2005-4 and on 2005-5.
3. Formal Approval of the Minutes of May 19, 2005
ST moved that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council adopts the Minutes of May 19, 2005 as written."
This was seconded by AD. The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments. The motion carried unanimously.
4. Formal Approval of the Minutes of June 02, 2005
ST moved that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council adopts the Minutes of June 02, 2005 as written."
This was seconded by AD. The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments. The motion carried unanimously.
5. Review of the Menu of Suggested Motions
The Chair explained that the intent of this 'menu' is to make the AC meetings more efficient by eliminating the need to read entire motions. RP stated that as long as the AC adopted this as a policy and practice, it was acceptable in terms of parliamentary procedure. The Chair called for any objections. There were no objections. RP stated that ARIN staff would assemble the necessary documentation to propose this as a formal AC procedure so that the AC could vote on it at its next meeting.
Marla Azinger and John Sweeting joined the meeting at this time, 4:08 p.m. EDT.
6. Review Editorial Changes to the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM)
RP provided the background on the genesis of the proposed changes outlined in Appendix A. This was the first step in a multi-phase review of NRPM that was endorsed by the ARIN Board. When the NRPM was created, policy was moved into the document as-is. This first review will clean up non-substantive issues such as spelling and grammar. The second phase will be more involved and may result in items that are policy-related, potentially leading to staff-suggested policy proposals for AC review.
Responding to a question from the Chair, RP noted that this effort is separate from that being undertaken by BD on the use of the term 'utilization' in NRPM.
Given that not everyone had read the proposed changes, and was not ready to vote on them, the Chair said he would re-send the proposed editorial changes to the AC. He explained that the AC will be asked to read and vote, via email, on the proposed changes. If full email participation in support of the changes is received by Thursday, August 4, 2005, the ARIN Council will not need to convene for a conference call. If there is not full participation, a meeting will be held on that same day. The Chair further stated that the AC's recommendation on the changes will be presented to the Board at the Board's meeting on August 8, 2005.
7. Status of Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-Sites
LR sent an update to the Advisory Council list just prior to the meeting. LR read it to the group. It was stated that the author plans to write a revision to this proposal, but the specifics were not yet clear. The Chair asked that LR and CW work with the author to move this along and report back at the next meeting.
8. Status of Policy Proposals
- 2005-2: Directory Services Overhaul. LB reported a flurry of activity on the PPML. He stated that he was at a loss as to what to do next. The Chair suggested that LB and MK revisit the proposal's scope, based on the additional comments received, and that they report back to the AC at its next meeting.
RP reported that the addressing WHOIS registry was the subject of much discussion by law enforcement during the GAC session at ICANN's recent meeting in Luxembourg. He suggested it will continue to be a topic of great interest, and that ARIN should expect participation on the part of U.S. government agencies at the ARIN XVI meeting to be held in Los Angeles, CA in October.
- 2005-4: AFRINIC Recognition Policy. AD stated that there had been no discussion on the list since the proposal's introduction. He believed most people see it merely as a clean-up effort. RP suggested that AD send a message to the PPML 45 days out from ARIN XVI to see if any issues emerge.
- 2005-5: IPv6 HD Ratio. AD stated that there had been some discussion of this issue on the global IPv6 mailing list since Thomas Narten released his Internet draft. AD suggested the AC continue to follow this discussion.
9. Status of Last Call Policies Recommended for Adoption by ARIN Board
- 2004-3: Global Address for Private Network Inter-connectivity
- 2004-5:Address Space for Multiple Discrete Networks
- 2004-8: Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the IANA Policy to RIRs
- 2005-3: Lame Delegations
RP stated that following the recommendation of the AC, the Board ratified all four policies listed above at its last meeting; and that ARIN staff is currently working on implementing these policies.
10. LACNIC Trip Report
RD and PA previously sent their report to the AC via email. RD stated the highlights included: observation of the membership voting system in action; and, how the attendees were encouraged to make their opinions known on an issue through several rounds of consensus casting if necessary. He also noted the considerable focus on IPv6. PA concurred that it was an interesting meeting to attend as it was a combination of several group meetings, in addition to LACNIC's policy meeting.
11. WGIG Update
RP noted the release of the WGIG report on July 18, 2005. He noted that it will be discussed in many forums during the September Prep Com in Geneva, and leading up to the second phase of WSIS in Tunis in December. SW noted that the tone of the report reflects the great job undertaken by RP, and the RIRs in general, on educating people how well the current technical system works.
AD asked what the AC should be doing regarding this issue. RP suggested that, as individuals, the AC could comment when opportunities arose and that formal position statements would be forthcoming through the NRO. When asked to comment on the entire process to date, ARIN Counsel noted that movement is slow, but it is occurring, and urged everyone to stay tuned to the debate moving forward.
12. Review of Open Action Item List
* JUL04-10 RJ, BD Defining Utilization
10/21/04 Update: No information could be provided at this time.
12/16/04 Update: BD stated that he had received an email with a document describing utilization from RJ. He reviewed it and also went through the ARIN policy document and found all references associated with utilization.
BD felt the document did not clear up inconsistencies in the policy document, and that an expansion of RJ's document would be necessary. RJ stated that the document was a well vetted draft from among ARIN staff, but agreed with BD's summation. He stated that some inconsistencies could be cleared up, but a full review needs to be done to weed out incorrectly used terms. RJ was tasked with sending the document to the rest of the AC for further review.
1/27/05 Update: BD stated he and RJ published their documents to the AC's list for discussion and stated that one AC member had responded. He then suggested a common statement on what 'utilization' meant and referencing it to the Glossary seemed the most appropriate action. He stated that any other similar references that caused users frustration could be dealt with similarly. It was discussed that a possible action item in a BoF could be to let people know of this idea, gather other glossary items that were confusing, and ARIN staff could address them as well.
RP agreed with BD and stated that in terms of doing a sweep through the policy manual, careful editing to the document would be necessary. He agreed with BD on a BoF to keep this issue moving forward. RP also supported fixed definitions planted in the glossary; and suggested that the AC form a discussion group to review it. He further suggested there could be a joint task force of ARIN staff and AC members to work on it.
The Chair stated that he and BD would shepherd this initiative, with AP and CJW volunteering as part of the group.
3/3/05 Update: BD stated that everyone reviewed the NRPM and that he was still shepherding this issue. He stated that he would keep everyone posted on its progress.
4/19/05 Update: BD thanked everyone who reviewed the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), and apologized that MA had done the most work. He noted that all differences had been identified and aggregated into a common document. BD stated that this compilation had been published back to the group of AC members reviewing the NRPM, and he had received some comments.
BD also stated that he had created a first draft of definitions and had also published this to the group, but had received limited response. The group of reviewers in addition to BD is: AP, CJW, ST, and MA. A number of group members said that they wished to have BD's documents re-sent to the group for review. BD state he would re-send the manual to the review group again for comments; and, after group comment and edits, he would then send it to the whole of the AC for their review and consideration.
Chair encouraged all of the AC to review the document when they receive it.
BD stated that the ARIN staff began this process with a document dealing with the historical use of 'utilization' and, that was a valuable document; however, crisp, absolute definitions needed to be documented, and that this was the reason for this secondary effort.
5/19/05 Update: BD stated that he sent a post to the AC policy support group, but realized he needed to send it to the AC as a whole, and would forward it to all of the AC for review. The Chair requested the AC review BD's post and thanked BD for all of his work.
7/21/05 Update: The Chair asked for an update from AP or CW. AP reported that BD had sent final comments to the AC list and was still waiting to hear from more people. The Chair requested AP re-send BD's work in a plain text format to the entire AC list, and that people take the time to review it and send comments. BD was requested to provide an update at the next meeting. OPEN.
* MAY05-01 MA, AP, BD PPML Digests.
5/19/05 Recap from AC meeting: SH suggested that a small AC task force be appointed to work with ARIN staff to determine how best to disseminate the information on the ARIN website Policy Pages or on the PPML. The Chair liked her suggestion and proposed: adding this task to the AC's Open Action Item List; conducting a non-published dry run of a digest, used to explore content; and, working with the ARIN President and staff on what kind of summary would be most efficient. The Chair called for volunteers with AP, MA, and BD volunteering. The Chair requested MA to take the lead with AP and BD supporting the effort. He requested they take in to account what the digest would look like, the logistics of the process, and the frequency of publishing the document.
07/21/05 Update: MA reported that she had previously sent a work sample to the AC list for comment, following some input from the Chair and RP. She stated that she still needs feedback on whether the AC thinks this type of project is a worthwhile endeavor. RP cautioned that the AC should consider the commitment of time and resources this will take on an on-going basis if they decide to move forward with this work.
The Chair asked that everyone review MA's work and provide feedback to the list. OPEN.
13. Any Other Business
The Chair called for any other business. There was no other business.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:08 p.m. EDT.
ST moved to adjourn and this was seconded by LB. The motion carried unanimously.
A. Reference correction. The release of the new ARIN website has caused several URLs to be incorrect. The situation is currently being handled by redirects, changing the reference links will remove the need for redirects. http://www.arin.net/policy/ipep.html to http://www.arin.net/policy/irpep.html http://www.arin.net/library/agreements/bulkwhois.pdf to http://www.arin.net/registration/agreements/bulkwhois.pdf http://www.arin.net/policy/proposal_archive.html to http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/proposal_archive.html B. Grammar correction. 6.1.1, 3rd sentence - Remove one "are" from the "are are". C. Grammar and readability. 6.8.3, paragraph 3, final sentence. This sentence now reads: "The middle 16 bits of an address indicate the subnet ID. Per (RFC 3177, RIRs-on-48s), this field will often be inefficiently utilized, but the operational benefits of a consistent width subnet field were deemed to be outweigh the drawbacks." ^^ Delete The "be" before "outweigh". D. Grammar. 3.4.1 - Second sentence of first bullet. This sentence now reads: "This mirroring is only allowed by other routing registries." ^^^^ Remove "This" so that the sentence reads "Mirroring is only allowed by other routing registries." The "this" is a pronoun without an antecedent; hence it is a dangling reference. E. Readability. 4.3.2 - It is not readily clear that there are policy statements for both single and multi-homed end users. To provide that clarity this section should be divided into two parts. This lack of clarity is substantiated by calls to the ARIN Registration Services Help Desk seeking assistance in locating the policy pertaining to end users who multi-home. This section currently reads: "4.3.2. Minimum assignment - In general, the minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN to end-users is a /20. If assignments smaller than /20 are needed, end-users should contact their upstream provider. For multi-homed end-users, the minimum block of IP address space assigned is a /22. If assignments smaller than a /22 are needed, multi-homed end-users should contact their upstream providers. When prefixes are assigned which are longer than /20, they will be from a block reserved for that purpose." Subdivide it so that it reads as follows: 4.3.2. Minimum assignment 220.127.116.11 Single Connection. The minimum block of IP address space assigned by ARIN to end-users is a /20. If assignments smaller than /20 are needed, end-users should contact their upstream provider. 18.104.22.168 Multi-homed Connection For multi-homed end-users, the minimum block of IP address space assigned is a /22. If assignments smaller than a /22 are needed, multihomed end-users should contact their upstream providers. When prefixes are assigned which are longer than /20, they will be from a block reserved for that purpose. F. Spelling and Capitalization email › email Capitalize the word chapter and section when used as part of the title of a chapter or section; for example Chapter One, Section 1, etc. G. Correct Reference. Change the table of contents entry for Section 2.6 from "End-Site" to "End-User". The policy text is titled "End-User" hence the table of contents reference should accurately reflect that. H. Readability. The NRPM was created in MS Word which, because of its auto-formatting feature (we weren't smart enough to turn it off), induced a number of unnecessary dashes and indentations. These should be removed to improve readability by making the document consistent throughout.