Thursday, 16 February 2012
Advisory Council Attendees:
- John Sweeting, Chair
- Scott Leibrand, Vice Chair (SL)
- Dan Alexander (DA)
- Cathy Aronson (CA)
- Kevin Blumberg (KB)
- Bill Darte (BD)
- Owen Delong (OD)
- David Farmer (DF)
- Chris Grundemann (CG)
- Marty Hannigan (MH)
- Chris Morrow (CM)
- Heather Schiller (HS)
- Rob Seastrom (RS)
- Therese Colosi
- Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
- Einar Bohlin, (EB), Sr. Policy Analyst
- John Curran, President & CEO
- Nate Davis, COO
- Leslie Nobile (LN), Director, Registration Services
- Stephen Ryan, Esq.
- Stacy Hughes, Bill Sandiford
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted, acknowledging that BD would be delayed.
2. Agenda Review
The Chair called for any comments. The Chair noted staff sent him a list of the proposals and Draft Policies (DPs) that will be ready for discussion at ARIN XXIX in Vancouver in April.
He stated that this meeting needed to move policies forward, if the staff and legal reviews have been completed. He pointed out that the AC’s next meeting needed to be moved up to March 8, to accommodate the Policy Development Process (PDP) timelines so that proposals on the AC’s docket can have the staff and legal reviews completed in time, and be approved during that teleconference.
Counsel joined at this time (4:08 p.m. EST).
3. Approval of the Minutes
It was moved by RS, and seconded by OD, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 20 January 2012, as written."
The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.
The motion carried with no objections.
4. Ratified Policies
The President noted that at the ARIN Board’s meeting on 03 February 2012, the ARIN Board of Trustees ratified the following DPs:
- Draft Policy ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers
- Draft Policy ARIN -2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 months
The President noted that he was instructed by the Board to implement the policy on Inter-RIR transfers (2011-11), however the document on shared space for transitions is still in the hands of the IETF, which leaves ARIN on hold until further notice on the matter. CG stated the IETF’s document was currently in last call, which ends today. He noted the results would be available by tomorrow. The Chair thanked him for the update.
5. ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement
CG stated that he posted new text to the AC’s list and Wiki, and that the staff and legal review had been received. The text is ready for discussion at ARIN XXIX. The Vice Chair requested the text be posted immediately to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). CG agreed.
6. ARIN-Prop-151: Limiting Needs Requirements for IPv4 Transfers
DA stated that the staff and legal review was received with no large concerns or changes. The timeframe has been changed to 24 months due to DP 2011-12, and is not incorporated into this proposal, but the text will be updated shortly to reflect it.
BD joined at this time (4:16 p.m. EST).
The Chair requested DA to change the title, as it no longer reflected the intent. DA stated he would do so.
It was moved by DA, and seconded by SL, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “Limiting Needs Requirements for IPv4 Transfers”, selects it as a Draft Policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting."
The Chair called for discussion. CG stated that he believed the restriction on allocations and assignments should include transfers. DA stated he had posted that to the PPML but it may have gotten lost in the PPML discussions. His hesitation in adding transfers was that it adds complexity to the proposal, and he did not see any support. He noted that he was not opposed to adding transfers to the text, but has not heard any comments regarding the matter.
SL strongly believed this issue needed discussion both on the PPML and at ARIN XXIX. OD agreed. He also stated he would support the change were it to happen.
The Chair asked CG if he was in support or against the motion. CG stated he was unsure and believed the text should have included transfers.
CG stated that, if able, he would have a breaking update for 2011-5. The Chair added this to any other business for discussion.
The motion carried with 11 in favor (SL, DA, CA, KB, OD, DF, MH, CM, HS, RS, JS), 1 against (CG), 1 abstention (BD), via roll call.
7. ARIN-Prop-157: Section 8.3 Simplification
SL stated this proposal has been retitled to “ASN Transfers” and has been sent to the PPML, and the AC’s list and Wiki. He stated that the staff and legal review has been requested and that when it is complete, the proposal can be moved forward.
8. ARIN-Prop-159: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement
HS noted that the staff and legal review was received very recently.
It was moved by HS, and seconded by CA, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, “IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement”, selects it as a Draft Policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting."
The Chair called for discussion. CG stated that he agreed with the review, and that the text was ‘too loose’. He proposed text last month, and believed the proposal could be revised. He supported the motion. DA asked if, other than the AC and the author, there been any support shown on the PPML? HS did not believe so.
SL agreed with CG. He believed OD also had revisions that would be beneficial.
The motion carried with 11 in favor (SL, CA, BD, KB, OD, DF, CG, CM HS, RS, JS), and 2 against (DA, MH), via roll call.
9.ARIN-Prop-161: Normalize Free Pool and Transfer Justification Periods
DF moved to abandon the proposal, seconded by OD.
The Chair called for discussion. OD stated that ARIN-Prop-162 is much closer to what the community wants; and that it should move forward instead, adding the necessary concepts and cleaning up the text.
The motion carried unanimously via roll call.
10. ARIN-Prop-162: Redefining Request Window in 220.127.116.11
It was moved by RS, and seconded by BD, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Redefining Request Window in 18.104.22.168’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket."
The Chair called for discussion. RS stated that he and MH, the author, discussed the language. The Intent was to change the policy as ARIN crossed over to the last /8. He solicited thoughts and ideas so as not to confuse anyone who reads it in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). It was noted it needed to be posted for discussion on the PPML.
The President stated if it is a trigger condition the AC should consider if it is a one-time occurrence. He cautioned that if strange events occur, and we back up over one /8 of space – does the policy revert back to the original or not? The President did not have any recommendation, but noted the AC needed to think of this issue in clear terms.
MH stated that the intent was stated as temporary on the template. He stated that it was written that way so as to address the classic fear of a /9 being approved just before implementation, and half of the pool being wiped out as a result.
CG believed that a ‘yoyo-ing’ policy is something that the AC has discussed and most have agreed it is not a good idea. He was not supportive. MH replied that he understood CG’s concern. He pointed out that there are currently six /8s that will last for some time. He believed that making a correction and reverting to the 3 month window would seem reasonable and believed it was a correction of course.
DF stated that he had the posted text, but was unable to connect with the shepherds. He believed this needed to move forward for discussion at ARIN XXIX in April. He noted there has been a year’s worth of experience with the 3-month term, and he supported the motion. He pointed out that the text needed finalization quickly in order for it to be discussed at ARIN XXIX. The Chair noted that the text needed to go into staff and legal review no later than tomorrow.
SL stated he was opposed to relaxing the 3-month term to 12 months, and that the region is in a soft landing situation now. Those that can transition to IPv6 are more comfortable there, than requesting space every three months. He personally believed it better for the long-term to leave it as-is. However, he recognized that the community is interested in it, and he was supportive of moving it forward.
BD agreed with SL. KB also agreed and noted that, with PPML, the bulk of the concern is new entrants and not the 3-month term. He asked if this was being addressed. OD noted that the issue for new entrants was being addressed in a different proposal. CG agreed with KB that there is a correlation, and that it leaves more space in the free pool without any additional policy.
MH did not agree. He noted that obtaining addresses from ARIN is still cheaper than obtaining them by transfer, or by using the legacy market.
RS was sympathetic to the desire not to oscillate policy. He noted that the approach has been cautious, and space came back intact. He believed ARIN does not need to be ‘quite’ as careful moving forward, and saw nothing wrong in stepping away from the current term.
DF stated he would like to see discussion of the matter on PPML. He supported the motion, believing it should be on the AC’s docket and discussed at ARIN XXIX. He noted he was unsure if he would support the policy, but recognized plenty of community interest in discussing the issue. The Chair agreed.
The Chair stressed that comments need to be submitted to the shepherds; and, that the shepherds needed to post a final draft to the AC immediately.
The motion carried with 12 in favor (SL, DA, CA, BD, DB, OD, DF, MH, CM, HS, RS, JS), 1 against (CG), via roll call.
11. ARIN-Prop-163: Dedicated Resources for Initial ISP Allocations
MH stated he discussed the language with the author and read the posts made on PPML. He noted that the author had some concerns regarding the direct link to the needs window. MH believed there was no evidence that any damage will be done to new entrants. It is not foreseen that they are excluded from anything. He noted difficulty in getting the text finalized for ARIN XXIX, as carve outs deflect from transition, and basically it is providing for need that does not currently exist, which takes away from present need. MH noted that the author has been responsive, except on whether or not he would accept this not being discussed at ARIN XXIX, but rather at the next ARIN meeting.
It was moved by MH, and seconded by RS, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Dedicated Resources for Initial ISP Allocations’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."
The Chair called for discussion. DF supported motion, even though he believed it is the wrong thing to do. He noted it could be petitioned. SL asked DF why he believed it better to be petitioned than adding it to the AC’s docket. DF explained that if the AC abandons it, and there is a successful petition, the author could work on it and move it forward. If it was unsuccessful, then it is a moot point.
CG agreed with MH that the community is done with IPv4 policy. He agreed with the motion, but believed if that messing with 3-months versus 12-months, that is messing with IPv4 policy, and there should be consistency.
KB agreed with the motion. His only concern was regarding the carve-out for new entrants as they do not yet exist, and cannot speak for themselves. He believed the previous policy would address the issue, and would it be adequately dealt with.
The President noted the need to think of entire Internet, including organizations, months or years from now, that will be seeking address space when ARIN no longer has any to allocate. He cautioned the AC to think about what the answer will be to those new entrants in the future. He posed: are we not concerned about reserving space because entrants will be able to obtain space from their upstream ISP or the market, or will they be using IPv6? If we do not reserve space, that may be an acceptable outcome, but the AC should then record why it believes it to be unnecessary.
MH noted that there are four sources that new entrants can get addresses from: upstreams, transfer market, legacy, and RIRs, and that only one of the sources will disappear. He believed that they would not be deprived of obtaining IPv4 address space. BD agreed stating that in the long run, ARIN cannot reserve small amounts forever. MH also noted that the proposal might not align with NRPM 4.1 regarding fair distribution.
RS called the question. The Chair called for a roll call vote.
The motion carried with 11 in favor (SL, BD, KB, OD, DF, CG, MH, CM, HS, RS, JS), and 2 against (DA, CA), via roll call.
The Chair tasked MH with sending the justification for abandoning text to ARIN staff by Monday. MH agreed to do so.
12. ARIN-Prop-164: Predictable ARIN IPv4 Resource Exhaustion
It was moved by OD, and seconded by CG, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘Predictable ARIN IPv4 Resource Exhaustion’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."
The Chair called for discussion. CG stated that there were six PPML posts that were all opposed. SL stated that he believed this proposal was intended to make a point, which it did, and not to be policy.
The motion carried unanimously via roll call.
13. Any Other Business
The Chair called for any other business.
A) ARIN on the Road, Brooklyn. The Chair explained this is a program where ARIN goes to cities where they have not been to meet with organizations for the purpose of outreach. The AC is invited to participate. MH will be attending this one.
The Chair noted the next ‘on the road’ trip will be held in Chicago and DF will be present there. He asked the AC, if available for future trips, to please send a request to the Chair.
B) Breaking Update on DP 2011-5. CG stated that he received information following the IESG’s telechat that the draft-weil had been revised and was pending final review within the IESG.
The President stated that he was contacted by the IESG side of the IETF and asked to confirm if ARIN has a /10 for this purpose. He responded affirmatively to the IESG. He noted this as a positive sign.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:04 p.m. EST. RS moved to adjourn, seconded by MH. The meeting adjourned with no objections.