ARIN XI Public Policy Meeting Minutes, Day 1, 7 April 2003 [Archived]


Here in the Vault, information is published in its final form and then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.

Call to Order and Announcements

Presentation (Read-only): PDF

Ray Plzak opened the first day of the ARIN XI Public Policy meeting at 9:00 AM (CDT). He welcomed all those in attendance and made the following announcements:

  • Thanks to ARIN XI sponsors - NASA and Comcast

  • Happy birthday to ARIN, now in its 5th year

  • Meeting Room Layout and hours of operation – ARIN Learning Center and RS Help Desk, Terminal Room

  • Monday evening social, B.B. King’s Blues Club

  • 105 ARIN XI registrants, representing 19 states and the District of Columbia, and 6 countries

  • 28 first time ARIN attendees

  • Announcement of winners of ARIN’s 4th Annual Foosball Tournament

  • Ray asked those in attendance to complete the ARIN XI Survey to provide feedback about the meeting.

Ray also introduced the ARIN Board of Trustees, the ARIN Advisory Council, those in attendance from the ICANN Board of Directors and the ICANN ASO AC. He also acknowledged those RIR colleagues that had come to the meeting. Ray then reviewed the meeting agenda. There were approximately 105 people in attendance.

Internet Number Resource Status Report

Presentation (Read-only): PDF
Presenter: Leslie Nobile

Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services, provided the Internet Number Resource Status Report. The data was current as of Dec. 31, 2002. Verbal updates to the report included the fact that LACNIC now has 2 /8s and that the 17 IPv4 /8s recovered from the RIRs have now been added to IANA reserves and that ARIN has received a second v6 allocation.

RIR Updates


Presentation (Read-only): PDF

Gerard Ross, APNIC Documentation Manager, presented a report on activities in the APNIC region, including the results of its member survey, help desk statistics, and current and future project status. Details of APNIC 15, which took place in Taipei, Taiwan, from February 24-28, 2003, were also announced. Gerard also gave information about the upcoming APNIC 16, which will be held in Seoul, Korea, on August 19-22, 2003. Highlights included:

  • APNIC is now in its tenth year

  • It has 800 members

  • Reopened NIR membership category

There was a question from the floor regarding APNIC joining the ITU. Gerard answered that there has been some discussion about this at the Board level of APNIC. It is regarded as strictly a strategic move to keep more informed about issues that come before the ITU, and is not about APNIC changing position in the industry or making value judgments about the ITU. In joining the ITU, APNIC would be better able to access ITU’s resources.


Presentation (Read-only): PDF

Axel Pawlik, Managing Director of RIPE NCC, presented a report on activities in the RIPE NCC region, including results of its member survey and updates on its secure member-only web portal.

Highlights included:

  • Updates to K root server

  • Results of member survey published in January 2003. Feedback fell into the categories of customer service, education and documentation, RIPE NCC fee structure, suggestions about dates of the general meeting, research and development, and the RIPE NCC’s low industry profile.

  • Plan of action, based on member survey results, includes seeking additional information on some issues, more communication on mailing lists, publication of a paper newsletter, and ways to generate better feedback from membership and community at large.

There were no questions from the floor.


Presentation (Read-only): PDF

This report was delayed until later Monday morning, but is reported here for consistency. Raul Echeberría, CEO of LACNIC, gave a report on LACNIC, with a focus on operations since being officially accepted as an RIR last fall.

Highlights included:

  • LACNIC became 4th RIR in 2002 and now serves 29 territories in Latin America and the Caribbean, with headquarters in Montevideo, Uruguay

  • 131 members, 7 staff

  • First set of LACNIC policies adopted after LACNIC III meeting in Mexico City

There were no questions from the floor.

ICANN Address Supporting Organization Address Council Update

Presentation (Read-only): PDF
Speaker and ASO AC Chair: Mark McFadden

ASO AC Chair Mark McFadden presented the ASO AC status report.

Mark reported:

  • APNIC is now providing Secretariat support; last year the Secretariat was supported by ARIN

  • Kim Hubbard replaced Barbara Roseman who is now with ICANN

  • LACNIC region elected 3 representatives to the ASO AC

  • Continued to observe progress in the establishment of AFRINIC, an emerging RIR

  • Working on establishing standard process for the selection of the ASO member of the Board of Directors and a standard process for selecting the representative to the Nomination Committee

  • Discussion ongoing to review RFC 2050 and its current relation to active policy

ICANN Update

Speaker: Lyman Chapin

Lyman Chapin, Director of the ICANN Board of Directors who was standing in for ICANN President and CEO Paul Twomey, gave an update on ICANN. Lyman repeated and emphasized Ray’s message about taking advantage of ICANN’s presence at ARIN XI to provide feedback on ICANN. Highlights included:

  • Most obvious and visible change is Paul Twomey taking over from former President, Stuart Lynn. Paul has been involved with ICANN from the beginning and served as the original chair of the Government Advisory Committee. He is open to suggestions of change and committed to the success of ICANN.

  • The At-Large seats on ICANN’s Board have a significant presence

  • Nomination committee changes, no constraints on at-large positions. Visible difference in makeup of ICANN Board. Chair of Nomination Committee is Linda Wilson

  • U.S. Department Of Commerce renewed contract with ICANN; ICANN provides status report to the the U.S. Dept. of Commerce every six months.

  • Formation of Standing Committee on Privacy, looking at issues including bulk access of WHOIS data. Trying to balance the tradeoff between those pursuing intellectual copyrights and those concerned with privacy

  • Board governance committee is taking a look at the way ICANN operates as a business.

  • Next meeting will be June 23-26, 2003 in Montreal, Quebec, Canada.

There were no questions from the floor.

Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP)

Speakers: Ray Plzak
Presentation (Read-only): PDF

Scott Bradner
Presentation (Read-only): PDF

Ray Plzak presented information on how the current process works. Scott Bradner then presented a proposal on how the process could be changed to improve both the raw process as well as the quality of the proposals sent to the Public Policy Mailing List and presented at the meetings.

General Comments:

  • Lee Howard asked “Why does the policy author need to “own” the proposal?” It was pointed out that there needed to be a point of contact that would be responsible for shepherding the proposal through the process. This does not have to be the author, but could be someone the author designates as a point of contact for the proposal.

  • Comment from the floor that there seemed to be several ways policies can be combined. It was stated that there was no reason to have several policies that are similar go through the whole proposal process. Furthermore, it is best when discussions about policy issues can be focused on a single policy.

  • There was a question from the floor about how this new policy process would be ratified. John Curran stated that the policy process is the purview of the Board, and this proposal is not an actual policy itself. The Board is looking for comments and will be the arbiter of what the final IRPEP says.

  • There was a question from the floor about how many people are needed to move forward policy proposals the ARIN Advisory Council does not support. The questioner stated that 10 people was too high a requirement, and that 4 people would be about right. The person posing the question further stated that no high barriers should exist for policy proposals, and that the process should be made as open as possible. In answer to the question, it was stated that only 4 people needed to declare support for a policy for it to go through the process without AC support.

  • Owen DeLong stated that in general he supported the proposed process, but had a question about the term “members” in the proposal, did this mean members of the community or members of ARIN? Scott Bradner said that language would be clarified and that the intent was to mean “member of the community.”

  • Bill Woodcock offered his support for the policy in general, but said authors shouldn’t have to be identified. Focus should be on the policy, not the author. In answer, it was offered that author may be the wrong word, “Contact” or “Sponsor” might be better as the author need not be the person shepherding the proposal through the process.

  • Bill Darte stated that it is very important for the AC to have the opportunity to help make concise, well-written policies. Guidance is important, as is having someone for the AC to go back to for changes. This proposal addresses the fact that the process must work efficiently.

  • Bill Woodcock asked about the issue of combined proposals and who should be the contact for such proposals. He stated further that he thought it should be the AC. John Curran stated that the proposal authors can designate someone to be the spokesman, or the AC can appoint someone.

  • Bill Woodcock asked a question about how the issue of global policies would be addressed under this proposal. Scott Bradner said that the AC should be admonished not to change wording of global policies unnecessarily.

  • A question was brought from the floor about what problems this proposal attempts to address. Scott Bradner answered that in the previous process the role of the AC was not well-defined and that multiple proposals couldn’t be merged. This proposal is intended to make the whole process more logical. A follow-up question was posed about how the AC would handle situations where the original proposal authors did not agree to combine the proposals. Scott answered that the petition-based method of support can push policies forward without AC support, and an author who still wanted to submit a policy proposal could use that method. Ideally this will be a cooperative effort.

  • Barbara Roseman raised a question about the definition of “member” in terms of post-meeting actions and Last Call on the PPML; how is 10-percent evaluated? Scott answered that he agreed that part was flawed and asked for suggestions. Barbara suggested that a percentage of the people who were present at the meeting, which would be about 10 or 15 people and that would be a good amount, especially on a mailing list. Barbara then stated that on a general note, she agreed that 4 people would be a low enough barrier for policy proposals to proceed without AC support.

  • William Leibzon stated that in terms of the policy discussions that occur after the meeting on the PPML, there needed to be defined a number of people needed for consensus and stated that he was concerned that the meeting does not represent the community of ARIN. John Curran pointed out that no mechanism currently exists for determining consensus, and that this proposal actually puts one in place. William followed up with a question about determining support for a proposal and how a substantial portion was defined. John answered that based on feedback here, there will be changes made and that they would be made public as soon as possible.

  • Randy Bush offered that the IETF has also been dealing with the issue of public meeting vs. mailing list. Randy gave an example where the public meeting had consensus that was not reflected in the mailing list due to the inability to provide accurate information about what went on at the meeting to the mailing list. Minutes and other solutions don’t work, video would be the best idea. John Curran said that this was an issue that needs to be addressed and that the ARIN Board would spend some time thinking about it.

RFC 2050 Working Group

Presentation (Read-only): PDF
Working Group Chair and Moderator: Mark McFadden

Mark McFadden provided a history of RFC 2050 and gave an update on the progress of the RFC 2050 Working Group. It was noticed that the rate of progress has increased and that an inventory of the documents that need to be created to replace RFC 2050 has been published on the 2050-WG mailing list. Highlights of his report included:

  • Initial document for ADDRdoc 0 (the so-called meta-document) is being edited and should be published for comment soon

  • Initial document for ADDRdoc 1 (the background document) is being drafted and should be edited and published in early April

  • Mark invited participation on the list, and asked for everyone to get other people involved as much as possible to ensure the building of a useful consensus

  • Initial draft of the third document expected by June 2003

General Comments:

  • Question from the floor about how the finalized replacement documents are going to be published. Mark answered that the intention was to have the existing RIRs publish the documents, and that they will hold them jointly.

  • Leslie Daigle asked that the working group make an effort to include the IETF in the loop. Mark replied that this issue is different from strictly protocol documents, but that they will be working to ensure that all potential stakeholders will have feedback into the process.

  • Comment from the floor stating strong opposition to getting this ratified by the IETF, as it has no standing. The IETF should be kept in the loop as address policy is the responsibility of the RIRs.

  • John Curran asked for the sake of clarification, was Leslie referring to the IETF providing feedback or creating another RFC on this issue? Leslie answered that she was mainly concerned about input into the process, and that there should be a short RFC that pointed to the series of documents the RFC 2050 Working Group created as replacements. This should be done for the sake of providing a standing replacement to RFC 2050, within the RFC framework.

  • Michael Dillon said that there seemed to be too much time being spent on the process of creating these replacement documents, and not enough attention or effort on the actual content. Mark McFadden asked if Michael was volunteering, and cited the need for volunteers. John Curran replied that he understands the concern, but we are still in the draft stage. As seen in the report, we are not there yet, but are getting closer.

Policy Proposal 2003-1: Human Point of Contact

Presenter** : Owen DeLong**

Owen Delong presented this policy and the reasons behind it being proposed. He asked how many in the audience had read the policy and approximately 20 people raised their hands.

He then asked for a show of hands from those who supported the policy as written. No hands were raised. Discussion continued after the proposal of 2003-2.

Policy Proposal 2003-2: Network Abuse

Presentation (Read-only): PDF
Presenter: Ron da Silva

Ron da Silva, as a member of the ARIN AC standing in for the policy author, presented this policy proposal.

John Curran then explained that there would be some discussion on both of these policies, as there were some legal issues and other similarities that needed to be addressed.

Discussion of proposals 2003-1 and 2003-2:

  • John Curran said that some policies occasionally need to be reviewed by counsel. In the case of these two, there are some challenges that ARIN faces should there be a consensus to implement them. ARIN is an association whose mission is promoting the responsible stewardship of Internet resources. There is nothing currently in ARIN’s Articles of Incorporation regarding enforcement. Some of the actions envisioned in these policies would not fit in with ARIN’s mission, being instead a regulatory function. This might require ARIN to need to look at changes to its bylaws, and/or articles of incorporation. Further, if ARIN, in effect, changes contracts with those currently receiving resources, some organizations would not receive IP addresses under these terms. There is some chance that organizations could view the constraints set forward in these policies as arbitrary restrictions. They could argue that these policies are misrepresentative of stewardship, and litigation could result. Several issues regarding these proposals also need to be addressed, such as a definition of abuse, problems with reclaiming address space due to possible litigation, and determining the onus that would be forced on organizations receiving Internet resources.

  • Michael Dillon noted problems with clauses 5 and 7. These issues both seem to be dealing with the contact database. It might be fair to consider what we publish and what information is included, but these proposals are not it. We could put in “Unknown” for information that is not current or known.

  • Sarah Garfinkel commented that whether we could even do what these policies propose doesn’t seem likely and not even within the realm of possibility. John Curran asked if it would be possible that these policies would be acceptable if reworded, given direction from the community. Sarah replied that the policy’s intent was unclear in some cases, and cited clause 7 and she was unsure how much is required or optional. In addition, she stated that keeping abuse contacts is a good idea, but these proposals are not good, and wouldn’t really make a difference.

  • Comment from the floor about the idea that should be looked at is abuse contacts and the maintenance of abuse contact information.

  • Bill Woodcock stated that these policy proposals shouldn’t be taken seriously, though in terms of Policy Proposal 2003-1, he agreed with clauses 1-6, but clause 7 had unreasonable requirements.

  • Ron da Silva stated that the three main issues that were addressed by this proposal seemed to be contact-related information, revocation issues, and blacklist databases.

  • Owen DeLong said that he would support that, instead of revocation, a list of non-responsive contacts was published.

  • Dan Alexander commented that he agreed that was correct and current contact information is a good thing, but revocation is an unreasonable penalty.

  • Alex McKenzie said that speaking in a corporate sense, he wouldn’t support either of these proposals. As a side note, he stated support for the use of abuse contacts. He commented that companies seem to be getting enough pressure from other organizations to update abuse contact information, and that a requirement to do so from ARIN is unnecessary. John Curran asked a follow up about whether Alex though ARIN should be looking into the abuse contact part of this, and Alex replied that it is important for ARIN to maintain the database with as accurate information as possible and where possible, verifying information.

  • Randy Bush stated that he would like to clarify something. He stated that it was important to differentiate the information that ARIN needs to do its business and what things are not needed.

  • Richard Jimmerson, as a point of information, stated that when ARIN gets and verifies reports about invalid contact information, a notation saying that the information is out of date is added to the appropriate records in the database.

Polling of Consensus:

Q1: Should ARIN be involved in maintaining contacts and verifying presence of abuse contacts in the ARIN WHOIS database?
Yes? 39 No? 2

Q2: Should revocation of address space be a means of enforcement?
Yes? 1 No ? 59

Q3 : Should ARIN involve itself in the maintenance of database lists of violators of ARIN requirements?
Listing corporations?
Yes? 0 No? 31
Listing individuals?
Yes? 1 No? 30

Policy Proposal 2003-4: IPv6 Policy Changes

Presentation (Read-only): PDF
Moderator: Thomas Narten

Thomas Narten, IPv6 Working Group Chair, provided a description of the proposed changes to ARIN’s current IPv6 policy and how they have resulted from experience of implementing joint-RIR policy. He stated that the current policy has been in place for almost a year and that the changes in proposed policy are for clarification and lowering costs. Thomas noted that feedback and discussion have been raised on ARIN and RIPE mailing lists and included discussion of wording issues (number of customers needed, perception that allocation will be lost if the introduction is taking more time and customers are lost).

It was discussed that an editorial committee would be formed to address this proposal and continue dialogue beyond this meeting on the global IPv6 mailing list that was originally used during discussions on the original IPv6 policies. More fundamental issues include longer prefixes for smaller ISPs that want to multi-home, need for provider independent addresses, editorial committee has several issues to address per this proposal.

General Comments:

  • A question from the floor about the downside of relaxing allocation requirements. Thomas said he didn’t have a problem with relaxing the requirement, as long as it was clear that RIRs shouldn’t be allocating v6 space to end-users. There were additional comments from the floor in favor of requirements, but with the caveat that the requirements not be made too high.

  • Comments from the floor both in favor of and against different requirements for early adopters and after widespread IPv6 adoption.

  • A comment from the floor stating that routing slots were the concern, not conservation of actual allocations (/48s). Thomas replied that the routing table issue was a concern when formulating the policy language.

  • Lea Roberts pointed out that changing the ARIN IPv6 policy so that it was no longer in agreement with global IPv6 policy was a concern

  • Comment from the floor that there should perhaps be different criteria for members and non-members

  • Comment that ARIN shouldn’t waive fees in a policy, but instead leave it up to annual review by the Board. It was noted that long-term needs should be considered; fee models now have to be different from fee models in the future.

  • Another comment in favor of extending the waiver of fees, without mandating it in policy

  • Question from the floor about IPv6 micro-allocations and allowing end-sites to get directly to the registries. Bill Manning replied that we shouldn’t burden ARIN staff with how people sub-delegate externally or internally.

  • Comment that it would it be a good thing to take these back to the RIRs for discussions. It is better to solve things in a uniform way.

  • Comment from the floor that voiced support for ARIN acting now, and stating that it wasn’t a good idea to wait for global effort. Diversity in regions is healthy and that if requirements were lowered, it would increase v6 adoption. John Curran asked if the person thought the AC should deal with this, and the person replied yes.

  • Comment from the floor saying that we should give the global effort a chance to address these issues, and if they do not, move forward with our own changes.

  • Bill Manning states that the availability of IPv6 addresses are not the roadblock to IPv6 deployment.

  • Lea Roberts offered that this meeting could present to the global community what in this policy needs to change, and let everyone work on it.

RIPE 261 Document: IPv6 Address Space Management

Presentation (Read-only): PDF
Presenter **** :Ray Plzak

Ray Plzak, ARIN President and CEO, gave a presentation on a proposal for the allocation of IPv6 address space from IANA to the Regional Internet Registries. Highlights of the presentation include:

  • Current allocation process unchanged in more than 10 years

  • IPv6 is an opportunity to fix some parts of the process, so the same mistakes made in IPv4 are not repeated, this proposal is designed to minimize fragmentation.

  • This document was developed jointly by the RIRs

  • Common Registry Service to rotate between RIRs, along with a “master” server which would have mirrors

General Comments:

  • Andrew Dul asked if there had been any research from allocators about how this would play out in real terms. Ray answered that there was no specific examination or modeling and that the proposal was based on experiences from allocating IPv4 space. Andrew suggested that five large networks could be looked at and what effect it would have if they were to convert to IPv6, and identify what size a block they would need now and what size would they need in the future. The reply was that the proposal had not been looked at in that way, as that would require value judgments about big ISPs vs. small ISPs and that the model established by the proposal treats everyone the same.

  • Comment from the floor stating that allocations out of one big pool was not a good idea and that we would lose the ability to filter on geography.

  • Ray suggested that ARIN recommend the document be given to the v6 editorial team for global RIR acceptance.

  • Randy Bush stated that it would be helpful if this was an Internet draft, and that the IETF should respond through proper channels

Delegation of

Presentation (Read-only): PDF
Presenter** : Randy Bush**

Randy Bush made a presentation on RFC 3056, which provides for IPv6 transfer over IPv4 networks without tunnel setup and explained the mechanism by which it works. As part of that mechanism, holders of IPv4 address space should be able to request the delegation of a sub-zone in the DNS tree from the party from which they obtained the corresponding IPv4 delegation. At the top of the hierarchy, this would mean that the DNS space should be delegated by the RIRs along with the corresponding IN-ADDR.ARPA space.

General Comments:

  • Randy stated that he did not believe this would have much of an impact in the RIPE NCC and APNIC regions, as they already have some IPv6 infrastructure, but that it would have an impact in the ARIN and LACNIC regions.

  • Bill Manning commented that was where the v6 stuff was anchored. Most of those delegations are actually coming out of Finland. Moving this to and the RIRs is a good thing and a low-impact effort. Appropriate for the RIRs to keep that mapping and manage what is necessary as outlined in this document.

  • John Curran commented that usually when something like this is proposed, someone comes forward as a volunteer to do the work, and that did not seem to be the case here. Randy replied that the IETF and those working on this were presenting this as a heads-up to the RIRs. John repeated that there are usually volunteers for proposals like this. Randy replied that it should be whomever is most appropriate and that in this case, that could be the RIRs.

  • Comment from the floor that if we, as ARIN, consider adopting this, it should probably follow the same sets of policy for reverse mapping.

Policy Proposal 2003-3: Residential Customer Privacy

Presentation (Read-only): PDF
Author and Presenter: Dave Barger

Dave Barger presented this policy and explained the reasons behind it being proposed. Highlights included:

  • ARIN guidelines presently state that privacy of an individual’s residential address information may be protected in WHOIS by indicating “Private Residence”

  • Pressure from customers saying they would like to remove their names from WHOIS database. Policy proposes that we replace names with “Private Individual”

  • Minimum impact as accurate customer records are kept by ISPs and maintained well, so issues could still be addressed by contacting the ISP

  • Issue - Who to contact about abuse?

  • Issue - How ARIN looks at utilization issues. Does ARIN totally use WHOIS to determine 80-percent usage? If the information isn’t in WHOIS, does that effect how utilization is determined? Would fall to ISP if ARIN required customer info

  • One alternative: replace name with “Private Individual” or create a hidden name field in database that recorded the actual name, but still have it display “Private Individual”

General Comments:

  • Michael Dillon stated that he thought this was a bad policy. In the past, “Private Residence” was done, and now we are being asked to hide the name. The whole general problem we need to look at is organizations and individuals and how they are listed in WHOIS. We should address the general issue, not these specific parts.

  • Owen DeLong commented that he thought this was a pretty bad idea. He understood the need for “Private Residence” more than this. If you need to be anonymous, just get an allocation from your ISP, and there are already ways to handle it now.

  • Comment from the floor that private RWhois servers provide this information without presenting it in WHOIS. This policy is a bad idea.

  • Comment from the floor saying that if you get IP space from an RIR, you are part of the community and that means having contact information for your space.

  • Dave Barger stated that what he was looking for in proposing this was something to point to as policy when asked by customers. If we can label these with non-identifying names and include the appropriate ISP’s contact info, than perhaps we don’t need this.

  • Richard Jimmerson stated, as a point of information, that customer numbers are not acceptable, ARIN asks ISPs for real names.

  • Owen Delong commented that a customer-specific identifier could be used, so that ARIN and the ISP could more easily identify the block. Reply from the floor stated that an IP address is already a unique identifier.

  • William Leibzon remarked that in terms of identifying and reporting abuse, it helps to have a customer name and organization name. John Curran asked if a customer number wasn’t sufficient to find information? William replied that no, a name is more helpful in identifying abuse as it may come out of multiple blocks from a single organization.

  • John Curran stated that there did not seem to be any consensus on this policy, but that it is something that needs to be looked at.

Policy Proposal 2003-6: Micro-Assignments with Sponsorship

Author and Presenter: William Leibzon

William Leibzon presented an outline of the proposal and discussed negative and positive impacts of implementation. Highlights included:

  • Policy designed to make ISPs more involved in micro-assignments, and review micro-assignment requests.

  • Micro-assignments wouldn’t be permanent. As long as you qualify, you can have a micro-assignment. If you don’t qualify, then the micro-assignment would be revoked.

  • Small companies more likely to abuse micro-assignments. Sponsorship (confirmation by ISP of customer) would help mitigate abuse.

General Comments:

  • Comment from the floor that some mechanism to have micro-assignments is a good thing, but this isn’t it. Need simpler micro-assignment policy. Lee Howard stated that he agreed the mechanism of sponsorship is not unreasonable as it is similar to how ASNs are allocated.

  • Bill Woodcock stated that the first point of the policy is contradicted by the rest of it in regards to sponsorship responsibility. He was against it.

  • Alex McKenzie voiced general support of micro-assignments, but not to sponsorship

  • Comment from the floor that this policy places a burden on ISPs and ARIN, and doesn’t solve any issues such as abuse. The end results will not be better contact information.

  • Scott Bradner asked how sponsorship saves routing table space. This doesn’t solve the main problem with micro-assignments in regards to routing table bloat.

  • Owen DeLong said that, in general, having a process similar to the ASN policy for micro-assignments would be good. Important to have minimal administrative burden and a reasonable process.

  • Marla Azinger commented that she wouldn’t want anything to do with this policy and cited routing issues and unreasonable administrative burden.

Policy Proposal 2003-8: End-User to Subscriber Member Status Change

Presentation (Read-only): PDF
Presenter: Dana Argiro

Dana Argiro, as a member of the ARIN AC standing in for the policy author, presented this policy proposal.

General Comments:

  • Richard Jimmerson, ARIN Director of Operations, stated, as a point of information, that it was general practice at ARIN to allow end-users to change their status to subscriber members.

  • John Curran asked if this is a practice we should continue. Reply from the floor stated that the practice is a good one, but that the policy was poorly written and we don’t need it.

  • Leslie Nobile, ARIN Director of Registration Services, commented that since end-user requirements are different, it would not be fair to transition someone to ISP status without having them go through the same criteria as everyone else.

  • John Curran stated that the Advisory Council and ARIN’s Registration Services should develop some guidelines relating to this issue.

Policy Proposal 2003-7: Announcement of New ARIN IPv4 Blocks

Author and Presenter: William Leibzon

William Leibzon presented this policy proposal.

General Comments:

  • John Curran asked what the current practice is on this issue. Richard Jimmerson replied that ARIN provides information about the assignments from IANA and the minimum allocation size possible for those assignments on mailing lists and the ARIN website under “Statistics.” John Crain of ICANN added that the IANA makes announcements to the appropriate mailing lists after allocating space to the RIRs.

  • Comment from the floor that this was something ARIN did not need to get into. He said announcements are already being done. While it could be improved, he doesn’t think this proposal would improve it.

  • Michael Dillon remarked that he did not like the policy and that micro-assignment and micro-allocations should be allocated from a designated pool. That is fine, but this is not the way to improve it.

  • Ray Plzak commented, as a point of information, that with anything in regards to IANA, ARIN can’t make any changes without working it out with IANA and the other RIRs.

  • William asked what people thought of the issue addressed in the first paragraph. Louis Lee responded that for the first paragraph, this policy would be useful to determine what size prefix to filter on, but until ARIN has a micro-assignment policy this doesn’t address anything. Barbara Roseman commented that ARIN does currently have a micro-assignment policy, and Leslie Nobile added that the micro-assignments are allocated out of specific blocks.

  • Comment from the floor that there not be too much in policies that inhibit the operations of ARIN.

Polling of Consensus:

Q1: Who thinks the level of notification is sufficient?
Yes? 32 No? 2

Q2: Who thinks we need a general statement that micro-assignments and allocations come from distinct blocks for micro-delegations?
Yes? 2

Transfer of6Bone Address Management Responsibilities

Presenter** : Ray Plzak**

Ray Plzak announced that discussion on this issue has concluded. The current status of this issue is that 6Bone Address Management responsibilities will not be transferred to the RIRs at this time.

Open Microphone

Moderator: Richard Jimmerson

Richard Jimmerson opened the Open Microphone session saying that if there’s anything to be discussed that is not on the public policy agenda, this is the time for those issues to be brought forth.

General Comments:

  • Alex McKenzie stated concern for the negative nature of some the policy discussions, and that such behavior discourages those who choose to participate. Scott Bradner agreed and asked for specific suggestions. Discussion ensued about participation on mailing lists versus in person. One attendee stated that they felt there was more negative feedback here today than on the mailing list. Marla Azinger suggested that a small group of people be empowered to review proposals to make sure they’re presentable and readable. John Curran asked why not approach the AC? Marla replied that based on her experience, she couldn’t find what she needed on the website. It was then pointed out that AC members’ e-mail addresses are available on the website and that the AC is specifically tasked to handle these issues. It was announced that the AC makes itself available for policy generation, including help with actual writing and involvement with PPML. It was announced that there would be a mailing address established to allow people to send e-mail to the AC collectively.

  • Michael Dillon suggested that better policies would result if we proposed new policies at two separate meetings, with discussion on the mailing list in between. He also suggested that there may be a need to add an additional day to the schedule for discussion groups for individual policies. Richard Jimmerson said they used to have working groups where word-smithing was done; however, he thinks there could be a better way for discussion. Thomas Narten added that he thought the process could be improved.

  • Dave Barger stated that he has had problems with talking to different people at ARIN and getting different interpretations of the policies. It was pointed out that in such cases, people should contact Leslie Nobile or Richard Jimmerson.

Closing Announcements

Ray Plzak encouraged all attendees to complete the meeting survey which he stated was now available on the website. He again expressed thanks to the meeting sponsors - NASA and Comcast - who had done a wonderful job. Ray also provided reminders about the Registration Services “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions” tutorial, the ARIN Learning Center, and the ARIN social.

Meeting Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 5:09 PM (CDT)

Note: The Registration Services “Answers to Frequently Asked Questions” tutorial was cancelled due to lack of attendance.

Comcast Logo


Here in the Vault, information is published in its final form and then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.