Friday, 16 November 2011
Advisory Council Attendees:
- John Sweeting, Chair
- Dan Alexander (DA)
- Cathy Aronson (CA)
- Marc Crandall (MC)
- Bill Darte (BD)
- Owen DeLong (OD)
- David Farmer (DF)
- Chris Grundemann (CG)
- Marty Hannigan (MH)
- Bill Sandiford (BS)
- Rob Seastrom (RS)
- Heather Schiller (HS)
- Therese Colosi
- Michael Abejuela (MA), Staff Attorney
- Einar Bohlin, (EB), Sr. Policy Analyst
- John Curran, President & CEO
- Leslie Nobile (LN), Director, Registration Services
- Stephen Ryan, Esq.
- Kevin Blumberg (2012 AC Member-Elect)
- Chris Morro
- Scott Leibrand, Stacy Hughes
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:09 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted. It was noted OD would be delayed.
2. Agenda Bashing
The Chair called for comments. The Chair stated that in the interest of time, Item 5 would be the first policy discussed.
3. Approval of the Minutes
It was moved by BD, and seconded by CG, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of October 14, 2011, as written."
The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.
The motion carried with no objections.
The Chair stated Item 5 would be discussed at this time.
5. ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement
It was moved by CG, and seconded by BD, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVIII 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 ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement and moves to it to Last Call."
The Chair called for comments. CG stated that there was strong consensus to forward this to last call and see if it has any objections. DA stated he watched videos of the ARIN XXVIII PPM (Public Policy Meeting) that he missed attending, and it seems the vote was lopsided against and the community was not that enthusiastic about this DP (draft policy). He asked if it should sit on the AC’s docket and gain consensus with the revised text.
CG clarified that many of the community’s objections were of the current text. Objections to the revisions were very low. There was support for the revisions to the text. BD agreed with CG, stating that comments were about the text that was not revised. CG brought it to community, and did not hear objections to the revisions. There was a show of hands of 34 to 20 in in favor, after the revisions were explained.
CG stated that there were 57 in favor and 6 against continuing to work on the matter. BD further clarified that this is last call is to forward the draft policy for assessment of the incorporated revisions.
The President stated, for clarity of procedure, that if the AC forwards this to the Board for adoption, after last call, the Board would ask him if the process was followed and whether the community achieved consensus. In the past, there has always been a show of support at a PPM in favor of a policy proposal - but if the AC sends a DP to last call and the DP does not have outstanding support that the Board sees as community consensus, the Board may remand it to the AC to continue working on it, as the Board may have difficulty otherwise advancing it.
DF stated he was uncomfortable with the DNS issues in the DP, and did not see overwhelming support. He was against the motion.
The motion to forward to last call failed with 9 against (DA, CA, MC, MH, DF, BS, RS, HS, JS), 2 in favor (BD, CG), and 1 abstention (OD) via roll call.
OD stated he abstained due to his being delayed.
The Chair stated that Item 4 would now be discussed.
4. ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers
It was moved by BD, and seconded by RS, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVIII 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 ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers, and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it."
The Chair called for comments. BD stated that at the ARIN PPM, 53 to 1 voted in favor of this DP. 24 to 17 were in favor of editing the text, and sending it to last call. BD stated that DF’s count was 262 e-mails on PPML with 37 people rendering voice on the subject. There were 12 opposed and 10 in favor, with 15 showing no clear opinion. BD stated that, in his reading of this, there were 3 objections raised, which were largely about process and procedure, and not substantive to merit revisions.
BD further stated that the substance of the DP’s objections was that ARIN should not allow in-region addresses to leave the region. There was consensus for allowing it during the PPM; however, objections were raised that a region could reverse needs based transfers once its transfers were codified. ARIN would maintain a list of RIRs with compatible needs based policy. The community did not intend for in-region transfers to be altered, and this DP does not alter them. The DP should meet both RIR’s policies and it does just that. The objection as to the wording was presented in PPM, and directed to our attention by Matt Pounsett, and the answer was as the current DP text reads.
The community had pointed out that there was a lack of specific mechanisms for full resilience against bad actors gaming the system. Almost every policy has the potential for gaming. ARIN staff is vigilant and would step in if that happened. Further reasons for this DP going forward is ARIN Counsel's encouragement that it would improve ARIN's position, compatible with the use of addresses world-wide by providing flexibility to those who have need anywhere. There is community consensus for the DP, and there is nothing wrong with the current draft that cannot be modified later, if it were found that further edits would be needed. It supports ARIN as a collaborator in the international community.
BS stated that he respected BD’s comments, but he personally considered BD’s long thought out introduction for a DP that is, by DF’s count at last call, more of opposition than support, selling a policy that needs more work. He reiterated he had the utmost respect for BD, but BS believed a complete rewrite was in order because the intent does not match what community asked for, and the changes made were too large in purview to forward to last call. He strongly opposed the motion for adoption, stating that the AC needs to continue to work on it further.
RS stated that he respectfully disagreed with BS on the nature of changes made. He stated they were pretty much were made to tailor it to the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), and nothing else substantive. RS stated, underlining what BD touched upon, that there is nothing about this DP that precludes further refinement. In his experience as a long time AC member, he would expect the AC would have something in queue to modify this policy at some point. RS believed that having this in place is better than not having it at all. He fully expects to see it amended in April. He supported the motion to recommend it for adoption.
The President stated with regard to a comment made by BD regarding ARIN staff, that it is true ARIN staff is vigilant and detects repeated uses of fraudulent requests. However, the staff comments were not meant to imply that ARIN would always catch such. ARIN staff would certainly be careful in application of this DP, but BD may have implied ARIN staff is foolproof, which cannot be assumed. The President wanted to be clear on this point. BD clarified that he did not mean to imply that staff was foolproof.
DF asked that since the text in question assumes 2011-10, would it be better to put on table this discussion for a moment and discuss 2011-10 at this time? It was the sense of the Chair that 2011-10 did not play to heart of this DP.
The Chair recognized that MC needed to leave the call shortly due to a scheduling conflict and that BS would also need to leave the call eventually due to his schedule.
OD believed that there was overwhelming support for a DP like this moving forward. He stated that there was strong support to move to last call after correcting the language, and that was the last motion made in the meeting. There has been good community support for it. The comments against have been a relatively vocal minority. Last call is a place to express one’s last shot at opposition. Most of them are not that relevant to the text, and more oriented toward process. This is not the forum for that issue.
DA wondered if staff could explain the assessment of the 9 to 12 months to implement – even if the Board ratifies the DP, would it be late summer of 2012 before any transfers are processed?
The President explained that there are times when ARIN will start development toward a policy before it is adopted if it is making obvious progress. By the next ARIN PPM in Vancouver, ARIN could be into 5 months worth of the preparatory work if the Board feels it is prudent for ARIN to do so. The President made it clear that he did not want the pressures of implementation timing to be so great that the AC would be influenced from doing the right thing with the draft policy either way.
The Chair noted that MC left the call at this time (4:37 pm EST).
DA asked that if the AC recommended adoption to the ARIN Board, there would be another policy cycle before this is implemented. The President replied that if it is recommended for adoption, the Board could adopt it, and direct ARIN to begin implementation, or take it under advisement and direct ARIN to begin implementation. Due to the strong spirit of community for policy in this area, and given the work ARIN needs to do, it’s reasonable that internal implementation may proceed in any case.
BS stated that what he was hearing was that the AC is charged with making and fostering good, sound policy; but that the AC is sending this for adoption when they all acknowledge that it will require further work. He could not understand why the AC would do that. He believed the AC should do the work first and then recommend it for adoption. He did not see the need to rush the policy through when it needed further development. He pointed out that there were calls by BD, RS, and DF to step up and speak up on the PPML, and there were more responses against it, than were in favor. He strongly disagreed with moving the DP forward to the Board.
MH agreed with BS. He considered that the process was seriously flawed. He countered that the time for implementation could also be a legitimate basis for the decision to remand back to a public policy meeting while the planning moved forward, and likely to result in no delay upon acceptance of a better proposal. The DP's reputation had been seriously damaged, and was likely to be a target both inside the community by mass revisions, and possibly from others outside the community. He expressed support for Inter-RIR transfers, but not this in this manner.
The Chair asked the President if staff went with preparations within ARIN while the AC kept working on it, how would that work? The President replied that if the AC brings it forward as a recommended policy, he would inform the Board that ARIN staff recommends immediately proceeding with the work. If not, he would advocate for preliminary work to the extent reasonable in advance of final policy in this area.
DA stated that the reason he raised this issue was not as a loophole. It was to clarify what it would take, and why it would take so long to implement. He stated he had his answer and thanked everyone.
CG stated he supported it. He believed that the AC has done a great job and made the changes needed to clarify the intent. He did not think it is being rushed, but believed it gained strong consensus at both PPMs.
CA agreed with CG. With regard to last call, she stated that there were a couple of people that were strongly opposed. She believed that just because a minority of people expresses their opposition loudly, does not mean their vote counts more than anyone else’s vote.
BS stated that the numbers were 12 against and 10 in favor. He pointed out that this is not ‘less opposed’. BD stated that the counts are marginally different one way or another. He accepted DFs counts because it had the most negative set of numbers, and it was the most comprehensive. The numbers are almost the same however. In last call the numbers were the near break-even point. In last call we should be asking, "Are these numbers such that another cycle is needed?" He did not believe the numbers were such that the DP needed go through another cycle.
The President stated that with regard to the counts specifically in the last call, it is, to some extent, an area that the AC has not been in before. The Board looks at recommendations from the AC and asks for the counts of support at the PPM, but typically not for counts with respect to last call, as there are relatively few comments. The Board may not even inquire on last call counts. Those counts are for the AC to reassure itself that it is doing the right thing. The President stated he could provide last call counts to the Board, if requested but does not know how or if they will be considered, and that he could not provide the AC with further guidance - it is up to the AC to decide on how to use the last call feedback, per the PDP.
DF stated that he would forward the counts he had reported. He explained that when he made the counts, he was ‘ultra-conservative’ that the vote was stated clearly. There were 15 that had no clear statement. Some were in support, but did not state it clearly. DF’s stated that in his summary, anyone opposed had clearly stated they were opposed. The lesser amount of people in support of it, were still in support. A number of people stated they did not support it because of the concept of transfers – no matter what. We have a clear consensus that those people are in the minority. The majority wants a policy. The others are opposed to transfers, and they are counted in the opposed numbers.
The motion to recommend for adoption carried with 8 in favor (DA, CA, BD, OD, CG, DF, RS, JS), and 2 against (BS, HS) via roll call.
It was noted that, during roll call, MH had difficulty with the teleconference call quality, and did not hear large portions of the discussion.
The Chair resumed the agenda in order, stating that Item 6 would be discussed at this time.
5. ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement
6. ARIN-2011-8: Combined M&A and Specified Transfers
It was moved by DF, and seconded by CG, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVIII 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 ARIN-2011-8: Combined M&A and Specified Transfers and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it."
The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.
The motion carried unanimously via roll call.
It was acknowledged that the teleconference quality was better, and MH was on the teleconference at this time (5:02 p.m. EST).
The President stated, with regard to Item 4, DP 2011-1, that it is typical for the AC, when abandoning DPs, to provide a justification statement to the community. In light of DP 2011-1’s last call it would be a good idea to include why the AC, given the feedback of last call, is recommending it for adoption.
BS asked if it was within scope to also provide dissenting opinions. The President replied it is the AC’s discretion. BS stated he would like to provide one or two sentences of dissenting opinion.
The Chair tasked BD to craft a statement, and for BS to provide his comments to him, along with MH and HS. He encouraged everyone to provide BD with their comments if they desired. BD requested everyone’s comments by early Friday November 18th.
7. ARIN-2011-9: Global Policy for Post-Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA
It was moved by DF, and seconded by OD, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVIII 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 ARIN-2011-9: Global Policy for Post-Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA, and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it."
The Chair called for comments. DF entertained a motion to remove the last paragraph of the rationale. He stated he did not support doing it, but believed he should offer it. OD stated that he too was going to suggest it, but decided he did not want the DP to go thru another last call cycle. DF agreed stating there was clear support for policy.
The motion carried with 9 in favor (DA, CA, BD, OD, GG, DF, BS, HS, JS), and two abstentions (MH, RS), via roll call.
As a point of order, MH and RS asked for a reconsideration of the vote, so that they could provide their actual votes, in lieu of abstentions, as they had been unable to participate in the teleconference when the voting took place. The President indicated that such could be most readily accomplished by seeking unanimous consent to reconsider the question.
The Chair asked if there was any objection to reconsideration of the question to allow another vote to take place, and hearing none, asked for another role call vote on motion to recommend 2011-9 for adoption.
The motion carried with 10 in favor (DA, CA, BD, OD, GG, DF, BS, RS, HS, JS), and one against (MH), via roll call.
BS left the teleconference at this time (5:09 pm EST) due to a scheduling conflict.
8. ARIN-2011-10: Remove Single Aggregate Requirement from Specified Transfer
It was moved by DF, and seconded by OD, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVIII 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 ARIN-2011-10: Remove Single Aggregate Requirement from Specified Transfer, and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it."
The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.
The motion carried unanimously via roll call.
9. ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers
DA noted that there was clear concern on how this would play into other proposals to change section 8.3 of the NRPM; however, a 3-month timeframe is not practical for arranging financial transactions. ARIN’s free pool is not depleted. He suggested it stay on the AC’s docket while sorting out DP 2011-1 and 2011-10. He suggested no motion be made at this time.
The Chair called for comments. DF agreed. It was the sense of the AC to do so.
10. ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 Months
RS stated he was going to make a motion to forward this DP, but neglected to make the changes to the text on the AC’s Wiki. DF suggested leaving on the AC’s docket and to discuss it on next AC teleconference. MH and OD agreed. It was the sense of the AC to do so.
11. ARIN-Prop-151: Limiting Needs Requirements for IPv4 Transfers
DA stated that he had spoken with Mike Burns regarding this proposal. He noted APNIC had restored needs based transfers and how it would affect this proposal. Discussions are ongoing.
12. ARIN-Prop-157: Section 8.3 Simplification
The Chair stated that the shepherds for this proposal were unavailable at this time (SL and BS) to provide a status.
13. ARIN-Prop-158: Clarify Multiple Discrete Networks Policy
MH stated that he had sent a summary to list and that there had been a considerable amount of discussion both in support and in opposition – very split. Discussions centered on staff interpretation. He suggested the AC take up discussion on aggregation and ICP2 and RFC 2050. He believed that if the policy deserves consideration around aggregation, the AC has the option to suggest that the policy is not being interpreted as it should be, and to recommend what it should be. The staff Clarity & Understanding was not completed on this proposal, and he did not expect any surprises. He stated he would be open to holding it on docket, but did not feel it was necessary.
The Chair stated that if the motion fails, it would be placed on the AC’s docket. LN stated she did not submit the Clarity and Understanding report from OD, due to some errors, and that OD revised the text and it was resubmitted three days ago. Staff asked if the AC wanted the report, and received no response. MH stated he did respond to say it was not necessary. LN acknowledged MH’s statement, and re-offered to provide the report if the AC desires.
The Chair asked how it would affect the timeline and the motion since the process is not being followed completely. DF stated he did not believe there was that much ambiguity. The Chair stated he was trying to ensure that the process is being followed.
The President stated, with regard to timeline, that the AC is obligated to take action at the next AC meeting after Clarity and Understanding report is provided. That is the AC’s time by which they must act. The AC is not precluded from taking action beforehand such as this case when the Clarity & Understanding is forthcoming. The Chair thanked him.
It was moved by MH, and seconded by CG, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘ARIN-Prop-158: Clarify Multiple Discrete Networks Policy’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."
The Chair called for comments. OD believed there is ambiguity in the policy and that there is additional wording that makes no sense. If it is on the docket, it can be fixed. It would make the policy more clear and meet goals of our mission on policy. The reaction on the PPML is 50/50 for and against; and, that is an indication that the community wants to have the discussion. OD stated he was against abandoning the proposal and that the AC can do that at a later time if necessary.
CG noted that this proposal was a lunch table topic at the recent ARIN PPM, and that those that showed up expressed that ARIN should stop messing with IPv4 policy.
The motion to abandon carried with 8 in favor (DA, CA, CG, MH, DF, RS, HS, JS), and 2 against (BD, OD), via roll call.
14. Any Other Business
The Chair called for any other business. BD stated that, with regard to crafting the statement for 2011-1, he would welcome pro and con sentiments that he can include in the statement. The President reiterated that the AC could publish one statement as one body. Alternatively the AC could decide the statement has AC view and minority view sections. The Chair stated the statement could have conflicting statements. BD is responsible for the statement from the AC. Others can craft personal statements, not endorsed by the AC.
The President clarified the choices: the AC can craft one statement as the AC which covers it all; or one statement with two sections: one section with the decision of the AC, and one section with the dissenting view. Either way, the AC should have one statement under one editor’s pen.
MH stated he would support a written dissenter’s minority view for the community. OD stated that including a dissenter’s view did not appeal to him, but he would rather see that in lieu AC member’s personal posts.
The Chair stated he understood OD’s sentiments, however, all individuals have the right to post as long as they are clear that their view is a personal opinion, and in a parliamentary fashion. Those dissenting were asked to get their comments to BD by Friday.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:36 p.m. EST. RS moved to adjourn, seconded by MH. The meeting adjourned with no objections.