Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council
Thursday, 18 November 2010
- John Sweeting, Chair
- Scott Leibrand (SL), Vice Chair
- Dan Alexander (DA)
- Marla Azinger (MA)
- Bill Darte (BD)
- Owen DeLong (OD)
- David Farmer (DF)
- Stacy Hughes (SH)
- Chris Morrow (CM)
- Heather Schiller (HS)
- Robert Seastrom (RS)
- Tom Zeller (TZ)
- Therese Colosi
- John Curran, President & CEO
- Nate Davis, Chief Operations Officer
- Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst
- Chris Grundemann
- Martin Hannigan
- Stephen Ryan
- Cathy Aronson, Marc Crandall, Bill Sandiford
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted. He welcomed the observers to the call.
2. Agenda Bashing
The Chair called for comments. The Chair stated he would go over the following items under Any Other Business, time permitting: AC January Meeting; IETF AC Representative; AC Chair election deadlines; and Shepherds for Policy Proposal 121.
3. Approval of the Minutes
It was moved by OD, and seconded by RS, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of October 8, 2010, as written."
The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.
The motion carried with no objections.
Per an AC member’s inquiry, the Chair stated that it is acceptable to reference a suggested motion rather than reciting it.
4. Draft Policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 Assignment Criteria
It was moved by DF, and seconded by OD, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVI Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, finds Advisory Council and Community support for Draft Policy 2010-8: Rework of IPv6 Assignment Criteria and moves to it to Last Call with the text as revised."
The Chair called for comments. DF stated the revisions have been on the AC Wiki for weeks and confirmed the text ‘as revised’ is from the text on the Wiki. He noted it had not been revised since after ARIN XXVI. He stated the revisions were 2 items from the slides presented at the Meeting; and changes to the language to deal with issues that staff had found unclear.
The motion carried unanimously via roll call.
5. Draft Policy 2010-10: Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post-Exhaustion
It was moved by BD, and seconded by CM, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVI 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 Policy Development Process has been followed, supports Draft Policy 2010-10: Global Policy for IPv4 Allocations by the IANA Post-Exhaustion and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it."
The Chair called for comments. BD stated 2 revisions were made in paragraphs 2 and 4 and have been posted to the AC’s Wiki and posted in last call. No significant comments on PPML. DF asked what the current status of this policy in the other RIRs is. The President and some AC members provided a brief status of the proposal in the other regions. The Chair called for any objections to moving forward. There were no objections. The motion carried unanimously via roll call.
6. Draft Policy 2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation
It was moved by MA, and seconded by SL, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVI 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 Policy Development Process has been followed, supports Draft Policy 2010-12: IPv6 Subsequent Allocation and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it with the following minor edits:
‘Justification for these allocations will be reviewed every 3 years....’ changed to ‘Justification for transitional allocations will be reviewed every 3 years.’ "
The Chair called for comments. MA asked if the minor edits were clear to everyone. SL stated they went to PPML and it has support on PPML using slightly different words. BD agreed with the edits. DA asked if the author’s and MA’s wording could be used as As written it is not clear if it is used for transitional technology.
OD stated he liked the author’s suggestion because it helps make clear that transition allocations are used specifically for that purpose, and not native duel stack. SL supported the suggestion to include the author’s changes.
OD suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to include the author’s changes. The Chair asked MA if she would accept the friendly amendment. She stated she would not, but would withdraw her motion to let OD make a new one.
The Chair called for discussion on adding to the motion on table. RS stated he was in support of it. MA stated she did not support choking IPv6 policy. She wanted it to be easy but without too many constraints. SH agreed.
It was moved by OD and seconded by SL, to amend the motion include the following edits made by the author:
"Subsequent allocations will also be considered for deployments that cannot be accommodated by, nor were accounted for, under the initial allocation. Justification for the subsequent subnet size will be based on the plan and technology provided with a /24 being the maximum allowed for a transition technology. Justification for transitional allocations will be reviewed every 3 years and reclaimed if they are no longer in use for transitional purposes. All such allocations for transitional technology will be made from a block designated for this purpose."
This change incorporates MA’s edits and replaces "reclaimed if it is not in use" with "reclaimed if it is no longer in use for transitional purposes.
The Chair called for a roll call vote on the motion to amend.
The motion carried with 10 in favor and 2 against (MA, SH) via roll call.
The Chair then called for a roll call vote on the original motion as amended to recommend Draft Policy 2010-12 to the Board for adoption.
The motion carried with 10 in favor and 2 against (MA, SH) via roll call.
7. Draft Policy 2010-14: Standardize IP Reassignment Registration Requirements
MA stated there was no update at this time.
8. Policy Proposal 120: Protecting Number Resources
It was moved by SL, and seconded by BD, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Protecting Number Resources’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket."
The Chair called for comments. SL stated this text was proactive on reclaiming unused resources. He felt it should be on the docket and the AC should work toward presenting it in April at the next ARIN meeting.
TZ did not feel it should be a policy and that staff was already empowered to do this. OD agreed and felt it should be abandoned.
It was moved by OD and seconded by SH to abandon the policy proposal. The Chair ruled the motion out of order. The Chair called for discussion on the motion on the table to accept the proposal onto the AC Docket.
BD stated there was a lot of interest in the community to ensure that this action is taken, so that reclamation can happen when it should happen. He felt the proposal should not be abandoned, even if it is questionable as policy, and saw no fault in making it policy.
OD felt it went too far in reclaiming legacy resources and did not support it. TZ stated that the topic is worth discussing, but as written the policy is too vague. DFagreed but felt could be worked on; and, he would like to see it on the docket and not having it potentially petitioned.
SL stated that alternative text is currently being drafted, and there will be effort to consolidate the two texts. He supported putting it on the AC’s docket.
The President stated that in early staff review, the guidance focuses on the language being reasonable and practicable. It needs to be actionable and not open-ended.
The motion to accept the proposal onto the AC Docket carried with 8 in favor, and 4 against (OD, SH, RS, HS) via roll call.
9. Policy Proposal 119: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy
BD stated the policy was updated based on staff comments and he reviewed the changes made. He stated that any need to suggest alternative wording should be expressed.
The President stated as part of RIPE’s open policy hour, this text of this was put up and there were questions referring to whether it follows the values that RFC 2050 states, as they are today, or any subsequent revised documents – stated directly or by referenced. They asked what is the meaning, and what do we want to do permanently.
10. Any Other Business
The Chair announced the following:
- The next AC teleconference will be December 16th. All agreed.
- The AC’s first meeting of 2011 will be in January in Reston VA.
- ARIN IETF Representative Selection. The Chair stated he received 5 or 6 volunteers and will make a recommendation, along with Vice Chair, to the President.
- AC Chair Election: ND sent information to the AC’s mailing list with the election details. The winner will be announced January 9th at 5:00 pm EST.
- Shepherds for Proposals 121 and 122. The Chair had called for any volunteers to email him directly. He stated that HS would be the primary and SH would be the secondary on Proposal122. He will determine the Shepherds for Proposal121.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:14 p.m. EST. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by SH. The motion carried with no objections.