Thursday, 17 March 2011
- John Sweeting, Chair
- Scott Leibrand (SL), Vice Chair
- Dan Alexander (DA)
- Cathy Aronson (CA)
- Marc Crandall (MC)
- Bill Darte (BD)
- Owen DeLong (OD)
- David Farmer (DF)
- Chris Grundemann (CG)
- Martin Hannigan (MH)
- Stacy Hughes (SH)
- Heather Schiller (HS)
- Robert Seastrom (RS)
- Therese Colosi
- Michael Abejuela, Staff Attorney (MA)
- Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst (EB)
- John Curran, President & CEO (JC)
- Stephen Ryan, Esq.
- Chris Morrow
- Bill Sandiford
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:11 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.
2. Agenda Bashing
The Chair called for any objections. There were no objections.
3. Approval of the Minutes
A) It was moved by OD, and seconded by SH, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of February 17, 2011, as written."
The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.
The motion carried with no objections.
4. ARIN-2011-1: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy
BD stated the text had been issued to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and on the AC’s Wiki and is ready to go to ARIN XXVII in April in San Juan for discussion.
5. ARIN-2011-2: Protecting Number Resources
SL stated that this is proposal is ready for ARIN XXVII.
6. ARIN-2011-3: Better v6 Allocation for ISPs
DF stated there have been no changes to the text and it is ready for ARIN XXVII.
7. ARIN-2011-4: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure
SL stated that this is proposal is ready for ARIN XXVII.
8. ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension
SH stated the text is ready for ARIN XXVII discussion.
Counsel joined the meeting at this time (4:15 p.m. EDT).
9. ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses
CG stated the text is ready for ARIN XXVII, and is waiting for an updated staff review.
10. ARIN-Prop-126: Compliance Requirement
CG stated that this is proposal is ready for ARIN XXVIII, for discussion in October.
11. ARIN-Prop-132: ISP Sub-assignments Do Not Require Specific Customer Relationships
It was moved by SH, and seconded by OD, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘ISP Sub-assignments Do Not Require Specific Customer Relationships’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."
The Chair called for discussion. SH stated she had spoken out on PPML regarding this proposal and on the AC’s list indicating she believes it is a bad idea. SL stated he understood people’s dislike of the text but proposed possibly that there is disconnect between the way it has always been done, and the way staff is interpreting policy. He felt the topic worth discussing with the community, as it is not clear if it’s a violation of policy. He believed it was worth getting broader input, even if not by this proposal. BD stated he did not disagree but that this is not the right policy for this matter. If we were to vote to defend this - that would be the place to say we find it worthy of further discussion.
OD found this proposal to be an attempt to rearrange IPv4 deck chairs further and harmful to the current allocation situation and the likely future of the IPv4 routing table, which will be shaky. He stated it would not get to a Public Policy Meeting (PPM) until October, and by then what is IPv4 policy going to matter? This has never been accepted in IPv6 world. We can look at it if that is submitted. In the past it’s been legacy space only. He felt it not in the interest of, or benefitting IPv6.
HS stated her objection regarded the proposal's technical merit. In the RIPE region they do this with LIR's, permitting disconnect between offering transit and the organization that allocates the IP's. Then there is no enforcement mechanism for the LIR to resolve Acceptable Use violations or other security issues. It is already difficult to handle security issues with good Whois data. She believed it was not a good policy for Internet community as a whole. Additionally, she supported Owen's comment on routing table growth issues.
MH joined the meeting at this time (4:23 p.m. EDT).
DF stated he supported the motion to abandon, but agreed with SL that we need to say why and be open to further discussion of it, on a limited scope of problem.
The Chair requested the AC send to MH, as the shepherd of the proposal, their reasons for abandonment. MH stated that he did not support the motion.
The motion to abandon carried with 10 in favor, and 2 against (DA, MH) via roll call.
The Chair called for volunteers to craft the reasoning for abandonment that would go to the community, as MH did not support the motion. HS volunteered.
The Chair requested HS to send it to the AC’s list by close of business, Monday, March 21, 2011.
12. ARIN-Prop-133: No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks
It was moved by OD, and seconded by SH, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘No Volunteer Services on Behalf of Unaffiliated Address Blocks’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."
The Chair called for discussion. JC stated that in proposals 133 and 134, there is a question of the concept of an independent registry. He explained that ARIN started staff and legal review on these early, because we felt it was necessary. If these proposals are on the AC’s docket, JC stated that he was arranging to meet with the author for a staff and legal review discussion of these proposals. ARIN is required to serve the number resources in the region per ICANN ICP-2, and that either subordinate registries in the ARIN region or a revised ICP-2 with some other structure would first be needed be accepted by the community before we can fairly consider policies which postulate the existence of alternate registries in this region.
Furthermore, he said, at inception ARIN expressed a commitment to both the US Gov. and to ISP community that we would serve the existing number registrations "as-is". To some extent, this creates a separate pre-existing ethical obligation to provide services to number registrations within our region. There can be policy changes, but changing this practice by completing abandoning service would require active consideration by the ARIN Board regarding how this obligation may evolve.
JC stated that ARIN is unable to recognize an Internet registry within the ARIN region that is not first formed by a policy created and supported by the Internet community. When you read these proposals, they indicate that there will be no services. He advised the AC that this needed to be considered for these proposals.
CA joined the meeting at this time (4:43 p.m. EDT). It was noted that CM had sent his regrets to the AC via email at 4:41 p.m. EDT, regarding not being available for this meeting.
DF asked if there was any legal advantage to keeping the proposal on the AC’s docket, and bringing it to the ARIN meeting as a discussion topic. JC stated that ARIN does not have a legal need to do so; discussion of this proposal was up to the AC.
BD felt that it was important to ensure that the justification to the community for abandonment, of any of these proposals, was appropriately worded in that context. The Chair agreed. ARIN cannot recognize another registry, if we should serve legacy holders – at what point do we say they pay, or be cut off, or not? It is an ethical judgment, not an ARIN judgment.
DF supported the motion to abandon stating that this is not the one to accept on the docket.
The motion carried with 12 in favor, and 1 abstention (MH) via roll call.
13. ARIN-Prop-134: Identification of Legitimate Address Holders
DA stated that he wanted a sense of the AC on proposals 132, 133, 134 and 136 – we touch on number of topics that JC articulated, and the issuance of services of what ARIN should provide, etc. he asked ‘Does anyone think that this is not a topic that needs serious time at the ARIN meeting for discussion?” We need to come to terms on either accepting this as mechanism (the proposal being on the AC docket or not) in which to have a discussion, or to carve out time at the ARIN meeting to discuss.
MH stated that the community has been asking to identify people who have legitimate ownership, and felt that the matter should get light at a meeting for discussion. The Chair reminded the AC that it would not be discussed, however, until the ARIN meeting in October. MH understood and felt that even if the proposal was not a good idea, it should get discussion time at the ARIN meeting and get the community’s feedback and understanding on the issues.
JC stated that the agenda for ARIN XXVII is quickly being finalized. To the extent that the AC want a dedicated slot for discussion at the ARIN meeting in October, he will mention at the ARIN XXVII in April. Depending on the feedback, it can be discussed in October. He advised that the discussion be formed around one single, well-defined question in order to fill the discussion time productively. His recommendation was that if the AC has a sense that if a proposal has the potential to be swayed by community input, the AC should have that on their docket. Otherwise, if the proposal has no merit, decide alternatively.
The Chair suggested that the topic be discussed during ARIN’s Open Policy Hour at ARIN XXVII. It is limited to 1 hour, so it could be done at ARIN XXVII, or at the ARIN meeting in October, as part of the same or as a proposal that is on the AC’s docket.
BD suggested a forum for dealing with this type of proposal, and justification of why we abandoning it. HS suggested it might be worthwhile to publish the topics to the PPML for community preparedness before the ARIN meeting. CA suggested it could be a table topic for the lunch held on the first day of the ARIN meeting.
The Chair stated that the ones on the AC’s docket will be table topics but if there is enough time, these can be added. He asked EB how much time is given during ARIN Open Policy Hour to discuss different proposals. EB replied 5 to 10 minutes – it depends on the volume of inquiries from the participants.
It was moved by DA, and seconded by BD, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Identification of Legitimate Address Holders’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."
The Chair called for discussion. DA stated that through all of the PPML discussions, he could not identify the problem we are trying to solve. The author wants to move documents into policy instead of them being operational procedures, creating fundamental changes with no reason as to why. There needs to be a clear problem statement. It can be worked on, on the mailing list and submitted in a later proposal.
MH stated that he agreed that document requirements are operational, but that the idea is reasonable and should be discussed. The author is looking to clear addresses - more akin to allowing people to engage in transactions that are secure. Having that as policy ahead of time may ease burdens, as we get toward depletion and are seeking sources.
SL felt MH had a good point; we are not sure how the transfer market is going to work. He felt it was worth discussing the general topic.
CG stated that if you are making transfers outside the framework, you couldn’t expect it to protect you. MH replied that one does not have to use an ARIN-sponsored address list to meet someone with space. It can be done outside of the framework, and then one can go to ARIN and legitimize it. He felt this is more likely to happen than not, and would save one time and money. This proposal simplifies it and saves money.
JC stated that MH is right in that there is uncertainty, in that people may try to do their own transactions and then come to ARIN afterwards, but notes that the policy proposal in question cannot provide that certainty. The problem is, that transaction is an 8.2 or 8.3 transfer, and until they put in the request, they don’t know if it will be approved. The author is trying to rewrite the criteria of 8.2 and 8.3, and the only safe approach is to pre-qualify. M&A transfer policy requires review of utilization; anyone doing it does not have certainty because the documentation comes afterwards.
JC noted that the community must tell ARIN whether or not there is any need for a process to validate a resource holder other than the Legacy Registration Services Agreement (LRSA) and Registration Services Agreement (RSA). At present, the LRSA is the only process. If they want a separate process independent of the LRSA, that’s a different request than this policy; and, it’s a hard, expensive task.
SL suggested that since there was enough disagreement over whether the AC has something on their docket, or abandon, that he could work with MH to craft another proposal; and, have it discussed at the ARIN meeting in October. MH stated he would prefer this proposal on the AC’s docket. SL stated he would vote in favor of keeping on the docket, but would like to craft another proposal, if the vote doesn’t work out.
DF agreed with SL and stated he would vote against abandoning.
OD supported the motion to abandon. He stated that he did not see that it addresses anything close to issue in question. He felt someone should create a different proposal. He did not think it was fair to change what is currently written to make it work. It’s not a good proposal as it stands.
The motion to abandon carried with 8 in favor, 4 against (SL, MC, DF, MH) and 1 abstention (HS) via roll call.
14. ARIN-Prop-135: Clarification of Draft Policy 2009-3
SH stated that the author has withdrawn this proposal.
It was moved by SH, and seconded by BD, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Clarification of Draft Policy 2009-3’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."
The Chair called for discussion. BD stated that the policy process is not for writing clarification to existing policy. A proposal to fix the policy is needed, not one to explain the reasoning of the original policy. He stated that this is out of bounds of the policy process, in his opinion.
The motion carried unanimously via roll call.
15. ARIN-Prop-136: Services Opt-out Allowed for Unaffiliated Address Blocks
As shepherds, MH stated that he and BS had not had the opportunity to discuss this proposal.
It was moved by SH, and seconded by RS, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Services Opt-out Allowed for Unaffiliated Address Blocks’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."
The Chair called for discussion. SH felt this was not a proposal worth spending time on. OD agreed and supported the motion to abandon. He stated that entertaining a proposal to attack the Regional Internet Registry system is outside the scope of the PDP, and he could not support passing this proposal. He stated it is contrary to the intent of ARIN and not good for the Internet community.
CG stated that from reading posts to the PPML, he did not remember any posts in favor of the proposal, other than the author, and that regardless of the intent; he believed that the text shows a lack of understanding of the current system in place. He supported the motion to abandon.
DA agreed with JC’s previous discussion regarding alternate registries. The fact that the community has not acknowledged how other registries can be put in place, ARIN cannot recognize the situation.
The Chair stated that CG had made a good point. SH stated she feared that her initial comment regarding abandoning the proposal was flip. She agreed with CG and DA’s comments.
MH stated he felt it unfortunate that he and BS did not have more time to work with the author to clarify the text. Counsel asked if there were a way to accommodate. The Chair stated that there was not, as the PDP is very specific on timelines.
BD stated that the AC faces the same issue as on the earlier proposals, and that someone needs to volunteer to craft the justification for abandonment. The Chair asked CG to craft the statement, if the vote is in favor of abandonment, as CG understands the issue. CG agreed to do so, depending on the outcome of the vote.
DF supported the motion but stated that if the AC were to choose between proposals 133 and 136 as a discussion topic for the community, proposal 136 is the one he could support to discuss due to it being an opt out.
HS stated that in order for an opt-out – you have to demonstrate that you are a legitimate holder. I don't think it’s in the interest of the community to take out a legit record for who is holding a resource. The Chair asked her to provide this to CG as part of the justification statement.
JC stated that ARIN staff would provide a clarity and understanding statement, per the PDP, if this proposal makes it to the AC docket. Staff has indicated that ARIN is unable to not serve resources in the ARIN region. This policy says that ARIN would not serve them as currently defined in the ICANN ICP-2 Agreement, nor the agreements between ICANN and Department of Commerce or ARIN and ICANN. ARIN is the registry for this region and has to serve of all the number resource records in this region. You can act on the policy proposal now, or wait for staff’s statement.
The motion carried with 12 in favor, 1 against (MH) via roll call.
16. Any Other Business
The Chair called for any other business. The Chair again apologized to MH for not providing what he needed regarding orientation on the PDP, and stated he will coordinate with ARIN staff to provide information during ARIN XXVII. He also reminded AC members to please contact staff or himself with any questions.
The Chair reminded the AC that the PDP contains deadlines that the AC must follow, and that AC members keep in mind when volunteering to shepherd any proposals, that they have the time to abide by the stated deadlines.
The Chair called for any further business.
SH and the AC congratulated CG on his new position at his day-job and wished him much success and prosperity. CG thanked everyone.
The Chair reminded the AC to contact ARIN staff with their travel plans for ARIN XXVII in the immediate future, if they have not done so already.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:28 p.m. EDT. OD moved to adjourn and this was seconded by SH. The Chair adjourned the meeting with no objections.