ARIN XXX Public Policy Meeting Draft Transcript - 24 October 2012 [Archived]
OUT OF DATE?
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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.
Note: This transcript may contain errors due to errors in transcription or in formatting it for posting. Therefore, the material is presented only to assist you, and is not an authoritative representation of discussion at the meeting.
Opening And Announcements
John Curran: Okay. I’d like to welcome everyone back from lunch. Welcome to ARIN XXX in Dallas. Should be a good day.
I’m John Curran. I’m the president and CEO of ARIN, and I’m here to help pull off our wonderful meeting. We’ll have a great time talking about various policies. We’ll receive updates from the staff and the other regional registries, and we’ll have a pretty good discussion. Should be a wonderful time.
Okay. I want to introduce – first say at this meeting we have our Board of Trustees. I don’t know if we have them all in the room, but Paul Andersen; Scott Bradner; myself; Vint Cerf; Tim Denton, our Chairman; Paul Vixie; and Bill Woodcock. That’s the ARIN Board of Trustees.
We also have the Advisory Council present. I guess I’ll read them all off at once: Dan Alexander, Cathy Aronson, Kevin Blumberg, Bill Darte, Owen DeLong, Dave Farmer, Chris Grundemann, Stacy Hughes, Scott Leibrand, Chris Morrow, Bill Sandiford, Rob Seastrom, Heather Schiller, and John Sweeting.
So you’ll see the members of the AC are here and will be about today and tomorrow. R.S. probably has not made it but will join us tomorrow. He’s with us in spirit. He was a little under the weather.
So Number Council. The NRO Number Council is the group of people who are elected or selected to serve this region in discussions of global policy at ICANN. Within ICANN they serve as the ASO Advisory Council. And we have three members from the NRO Number Council here: Ron da Silva; Louie Lee, who serves as the chairman; and Jason Schiller.
Our colleagues. Quite a few. Ernest Byaruhanga from AFRINIC. From RIPE, Emilio, Kaveh, Axel, and Mirjam. LACNIC, Juan. And APNIC, Geoff Huston – I know he was here earlier, yes – Samantha, Sanjaya, and German.
Okay. The ARIN management team. You’ve met myself. Nate, our Chief Operating Officer, is here. He’s the one who actually keeps ARIN running. Cathy Handley, Executive Director of Government Affairs, who you all saw on the panel earlier regarding Internet Governance and the modern age. Bob Stratton, probably the most important people, the one who collects your money and pays the bills. Susan Hamlin, who runs the meeting, our member services. Mark Kosters, who runs engineering. Mary K. Lee, HR and Administrative Director, and Leslie Nobile, who runs the Registration Services desk who provides the services you all need.
We also have people here today from the Fellowship Program. We have a Fellowship Program that helps people with the – defer the expenses of travel and staying and the costs of the meeting. We find this is instrumental to getting people – getting people from all parts of the ARIN region able to participate.
So we have Peter Rocca from Star Communications from Canada. If you see Peter, feel free to talk to him. This is coming to our meeting. We have Devendra Shah and Robert Johnson. Yes. And from the Caribbean, Gary Cambell, Ministry of Science, Engineering and Mining. Yes. Very good.
Postel Network Operations Scholar, Lionel Dwight Kapus, from Papua New Guinea. Are you here, Lionel? Somewhere. Yes. The Postel Network Operations Scholar is a program done jointly with NANOG in recognition of John Postel. It’s a scholarship that pays for them to be able to attend the ARIN and NANOG meeting.
Welcome, first timers. We have a number of first timers. They all met this morning for breakfast around the corner, got to meet the ARIN elected bodies and staff.
And we’re going to have a prize drawing now for the questionnaire on our First-Timers’ Breakfast. So I will ask our chairman, Mr. Denton, to pull out one slip. Very good. And the name of the $100 gift certificate to ThinkGeek is Juan Peirano. Hello, Juan. Where are you? Yes, very good.
John Curran: And we will mail that to you, Juan.
Okay. Remote participants. Remember, we have remote participants. You can participate in ARIN without being here on site. And you not only get to participate in the mailing list, but you can see the webcast and ask questions and actually participate in the show of hands when we poll regarding policy.
So I ask everyone to be very clear when speaking at the microphones and identify yourself out of respect to the remote participants. If you can’t be here at some point and want to participate remotely, we highly encourage it.
So I want to point out in your meeting materials, we have trimmed down the amount of printed materials in order to decrease paper waste. We’re increasingly an online organization. But you do have still a printed guide to the policies. And you can find the full online meeting folder online at ARIN.net, ARIN_XXX, materials.
Attendance stats. We have 15 people registered from Canada, 124 from the United States, three from the Caribbean, 31 from outside the ARIN region, and we have 22 preregistered remote participants.
Rules and reminders. The chair of ARIN will moderate the discussions of Draft Policy so all can speak and all can be heard. Please state your name and affiliation each time you are recognized at the microphone. Please comply with the rules and courtesies in the Discussion Guide.
Today we have a very full agenda. We have – the NRO Number Council has a spot for elections, so we have NRO Number Council election speeches to see who will be reelected to serve on that body.
The AC will give its proposals report of all the on-docket proposals it’s working on.
We have a Regional Policy Development Report, which Einar will give, which will summarize the status of policies going into development in the various regions.
We have the Internet Number Status Report, which will be given by Leslie, which will talk about the status of the free pool and allocated pool and various stats regarding how we’ve been doing there.
We have two Draft Policies we’re going to talk about today: Draft Policy 2012-6, which will revise Section 4.4 Critical Infrastructure Reserved Pool Size, and Draft Policy 2012-8, which is aligning the 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy.
We’ll receive NRO activities and NRO Number Council report.
At the end of the day we have the ARIN Board and Advisory Council, both of which have seats open for election this year, so we’ll have a review of the election procedures and we’ll have candidate speeches.
So I want to thank last night’s happy hour sponsors, Sprocket Networks and Hilco Streambank.
John Curran: And I want to thank our sponsor for connectivity, Terremark, a Verizon company.
John Curran: Okay. Tonight’s social. We have a social tonight, which will be at Gilley’s Dallas. Buses will begin loading at 6:30 at Olive Street entrance of the lobby. You need to be there at 6:30. The last bus leaves at 6:50. Then you’re on your own. Bring your name badge. This is very important to get you into the social. Return bus service will start coming from the social back at 8:00 PM
So at the head table, just want to say who is up here. Timothy Denton, our chair; Cathy from the ARIN AC; Bill from the ARIN AC; Scott, ARIN Board; Paul Vixie, yes; and John Sweeting, ARIN AC and ARIN AC chairman.
Okay. We’re going to start right off and we’re going to go through the NRO NC election procedures. I’m going to ask Jud Lewis to come up.
NRO NC Election Procedures And Speeches
Jud Lewis: Thank you, John. My name is Jud Lewis, the guy at ARIN that runs the elections. Today I’m going to give you a quick presentation about the NRO NC, which is basically a fun acronym for Number Resource Organization Number Council.
And here’s a synopsis of it. The Number Council advises the NRO Executive Council on proposed global Internet Number Resource allocation policies and serves the function of the ICANN Address Supporting Organization, or ASO AC. You can learn more at aso – I can’t read it – aso.icann.org.
So who can vote? The answer is everybody in this room. It is my hope that – yes. It is my hope that you all do so. After I finish speaking, we’ll bring up the two candidates. And I hope that after you hear what they have to say, you are moved to cast a vote for them.
As a NANOG attendee or an ARIN attendee, you’re eligible to vote as long as you have registered for your meeting by the tenth of October, was the cut-off date, to make it on the voter’s slate.
If you are a DMR, use that email. If you are a NANOG attendee, use that one. Or if you’re an ARIN attendee, use that one. You can’t double dip. You can only vote once in the election.
So sorry, y’all, if you came to NANOG as well as the ARIN meeting, you can only cast one vote in the NRO election.
Okay. So this is a calendar of October. One week ago this election opened. And this election is going to close today at 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
And you’re about to hear the candidate speeches, as I mentioned. And tomorrow, tomorrow morning, first thing in the meeting we’re going to announce the winner of the NRO NC election.
This is ARIN election headquarters. URL is www.ARIN.net/app/election. That’s where you’ll go to log in and vote. You can read statements in support we have for the candidates or submit statements yourself for these candidates.
There are instructions there how to vote. Also, if you want, I have a handy-dandy flyer with voting instructions as well. And that’s available right outside at the election help desk. I’ll be glad to assist you if you come up. Or if you don’t want to talk to me in person, you can always email me at firstname.lastname@example.org, and I’ll get you set up to vote.
Just remember the deadline, which is the 24th of October, 5:00 PM I have this little clipart cowboy here, and I hope he will inspire you to cast that vote by that time.
I’m going to turn it over to John now, who is going to introduce the candidates.
John Curran: Okay. So we’re going to have the candidates come up and each one give a brief speech about their candidacy.
Here we go. First candidate, Andrew Dul. Come on up.
Andrew Dul: Thank you, John. Thank you, everyone, for being here today.
So I’ve gone back and forth trying to figure out what I should say today. I’ve been around these parts working with Number Resource policy in this region for over ten years now.
And I think it’s important that we think about how things have changed over the past ten to 15 years and how things are going to change in the future, because we are at kind of a critical point in the evolution of the Internet, not only with the governments being more involved, as we talked about this morning, but also just with IPv6 transition as it is in process.
For the first time I think we all have a lot of real hope about IPv6 this year. The launch day is apparently – from what we can see, very successful, and the numbers are growing. They’re still small, but they are growing, and I think that’s a great thing to note.
And this role plays an important part. It’s a small part, but it’s an important part, because, as the Internet is a global entity, we need to think and act globally, even though we are here acting locally.
And I’m wearing a crazy orange shirt today. It commemorates the end of Kodachrome, which was a Kodak film. We all know Kodak is in bankruptcy and Kodachrome is no longer.
But we all have fond memories of different ways photography has changed our own lives, but we have to remember that we do evolve with the times.
And just keeping that in mind as we go forward, I encourage you, first of all, to vote and just to think about how you can be involved in the future as well, and I’d be delighted to serve additionally in this capacity.
So thank you for your time.
John Curran: Next up I’d like to have Louie Lee speak about his candidacy.
Louie Lee: Thank you, John. Thanks, Andrew. Hello, everyone. My name is Louie Lee. I’ve been on the NRO NC, ASO AC for the past nine years, and for the past five years I’ve been chair. Thank you for entrusting me for this responsibility, and I’d like to continue my service.
There is some work that I would like to keep moving on with. For instance, lately I’ve been able to engage the various RALOs, Regional At-Large Organizations, from around the world. They share our viewpoints of having a bottom-up Policy Development Process. While their focus is more on civil society, Internet improvement, we have policies that are important to their ideals, and I’d like if they would come join in the Policy Development Process.
Other groups that we’ve engaged in ICANN, let them know that we are taking care of things and inviting them to come join us as they see fit.
So I would like your support. This is my uniform to engage the ICANN community and this is also my uniform to ask you for your support. Thank you very much.
John Curran: Okay. Very good. So, as Jud said, we’re going to be – we’re in the middle of the election now. And you all are entitled to vote, and we’re going to be announcing the elected one very shortly.
Okay. First up on our docket is the AC On-Docket Proposal Report, and that will be given by AC chair John Sweeting.
AC On-Docket Proposals Report
John Sweeting: Okay. Thank you, John. Good afternoon everyone. This will be really quick and maybe help put us back on track for time.
The On-Docket Report is any proposal that we actually are currently working on but did not have ready for various reasons for this meeting.
We actually have one proposal that is on the docket. It’s ARIN Proposal 180, ISP Private Reassignment. There will be a time slot that will be presented during this meeting.
So just real quickly it would allow ISPs to register their reassignments, privately, and the decision would be made between the customer and the ISP.
We have one proposal that we will be reviewing and deciding on whether to put on the docket or abandon in our meeting on Friday afternoon. That proposal is ARIN Proposal 182, Update Residential Customer Definition to Not Exclude Wireless as a Residential Service.
From the staff clarity and understanding, this proposal removes the requirement for Internet access to be provided in a physical residence, which broadens the definition of residential customers to all non-commercial users.
As you saw during lunch today, we have four lunch table topics going on. I noticed that the last one there, the observations on transfer policy, was very, very well attended. They had to pull two tables together to seat everybody that wanted to discuss that.
But the other three are the two proposals that we’re currently working on, and also there’s a working group within the AC looking to improve communications for the Policy Development Process or the PDP, as we all fondly know it.
That’s it. Unless there’s any questions, I’ll turn it back over to John.
John Curran: We now have Einar to come up to give the Regional Policy Report.
Regional PDP Report
Einar Bolin: At this time as we lead into ARIN meetings, I take a look at all the proposal discussions around the world, at all the different RIRs, and I categorize them by type of proposal and I count them up, and I’ve been tracking that for a couple of years.
And the number proposals has tapered off a little bit, but the most dominant topic is still IPv4 all around the world. And within that category of IPv4 the most dominant topic is transfers. And then we still have some proposals about v6 and directory services.
And in the past I’ve done a match-up where I show our Draft Policies that are going to be discussed this week and how they compare with things that are being discussed around the world, and the items on the agenda this week are just unique to the ARIN region.
And just to give you some highlights from some of the discussions at the other RIRs, with the topic of IPv4, RIPE and LACNIC are looking at inter-RIR transfers. AFRINIC is looking at a proposal to allow anycast services request IPv4 space, minimum /24. And there’s an interesting proposal in the LACNIC region which will be discussed next week which would require RPKI and ROAs when ISPs come back for additional space.
With the category of IPv6 in the APNIC region, they’re looking at removing the multi-homing requirement from their direct assignments.
These are the updated links to the proposal sites. If you want to see exactly what they’re discussing, you can go to these links and see exactly what’s been discussed, what’s recently been abandoned, or what’s been implemented recently.
And that’s really it. Any questions? If you do have questions, the other RIR staff are here, and they’ll be glad to talk to you in detail about their proposals.
John Curran: Thank you, Einar.
Next up is Leslie Nobile to give the Number Status Report.
Internet Number Resource Status Report
Leslie Nobile: Good afternoon. So I’m going to talk to you about Internet Number Resources globally.
This was updated on the 30th of September. We update it four times a year, so it is pretty current.
First we’ll start by looking at the IPv4 Address Global Pool. That’s far away. Okay. Looking at the top right corner, it says “not available 35.” There are 35 /8s currently in use by the technical community that are not available to the RIRs or IANA.
There are 91 /8s that were issued by the Central Registry. That’s basically the old SRI-NIC, DoD NIC, InterNIC. And most of the legacy space resides in that gray pie right there. I’m sorry, it was all issued prior to the establishment of the RIRs.
You can see that the RIRs together have received 130 /8s from the IANA. And looking further down, you can see how it’s broken out. You can see it, but I cannot. It’s just a little bit too far for me. I’m sorry. It’s just too far. Can you see it? All five of them, how many each of them have received from the IANA. Sorry, guys, I didn’t know my vision was this bad.
John Curran: ARIN, 36; AFRINIC,five; LACNIC, nine; RIPE NCC, 35; APNIC, 45.
Leslie Nobile: Thank you very much. Okay. Thank you. I was feeling really – anyway, probably the most important reference right there is in red. IANA reserved pool is at zero. IANA did issue their last /8s last February 2011 to the RIRs.
We show zero right there, but, quite honestly, three of the larger RIRs – APNIC, ARIN, and RIPE NCC – actually returned to the IANA IPv4 address space over the past several months, and in total it was 1.26 /8s. So IANA is currently sitting on 1.26 /8s worth of space, and it will eventually be issued to the RIRs under a global policy.
Available IPv4/8s in each RIR. You can see that on the left AFRINIC has the most with 4.11 /8s. Oh, God, here we go. APNIC, .91, I think. ARIN has 2.86. LACNIC, 3.21. And RIPE NCC has 1.02 /8s remaining.
This just shows the IPv4 address space issued. We went back as far as 1999 through September 30th of 2012, and it just shows what we’ve issued to all of our customers v4 space in total. And basically the trend was moving up, particularly in the RIPE and APNIC regions. Mostly in the APNIC region. As you all know, they ran out of IPv4 space first in 2011, I believe it was. Actually, they’re working from their last /8.
This shows the cumulative total of the v4 space issued to our customers. RIPE’s issued a little over 34 /8s; ARIN, a little over 29; LACNIC, 7.21; and AFRINIC, 2.5; and APNIC, a little over 44.
This shows ASN assignments from ‘99 through 2012. Early on it was RIPE – I’m sorry, it was ARIN that was issuing most of the ASNs, and that’s been changing over recent years and RIPE has been issuing far more ASNs than any of the other four RIRs.
This shows the cumulative totals. ARIN, a little over 23,600; AFRINIC, 878; LACNIC, almost 3,000; APNIC, a little over 8,000; and RIPE NCC at 26,000 ASNs issued.
This shows the 4-byte ASNs. As you can see, most of the 4-byte ASNs are being issued in the RIPE region followed by LACNIC and APNIC. ARIN and AFRINIC are a blip on that screen.
This slide shows it a little bit better. It shows the cumulative totals of how many we’ve all issued. And, as you can see, RIPE’s issued more, followed by APNIC and LACNIC, and then ARIN and AFRINIC.
The reason for this disparity is that LACNIC and RIPE and APNIC issue 4-byte ASNs by default, whereas ARIN and AFRINIC are issuing two bytes by default because we started lowest number to highest number. So we actually implemented the global policy slightly different in the regions.
This shows the IPv6 address pool, the global pool. The total is a /0. We’re currently working from a /3 in the IANA reserve for global unicast. Each of the five RIRs received a /12 in October 2006 in accordance with a global policy.
And then there’s one /12 that has sort of some miscellaneous bits and pieces in it. I think some of it is used for documentation, and I think there’s a couple of /23s in there that the RIRs were issued prior to the establishment of this global policy.
This shows the v6 allocations to our ISP customers. And, as you can see, most of the growth in the v6 region is in RIPE. And this shows the cumulative totals, and that really confirms it. RIPE has issued almost 5,000 IPv6 allocations, and you can see the rest of the totals.
IPv6 assignments, RIRs to our end users. RIPE and ARIN have made most of those IPv6 end-user assignments. And there’s the cumulative totals.
And we looked at how many of our members have both IPv4 and IPv6. And starting with AFRINIC, they have – they’re about 35 percent, a little over 35 percent of their members have both; 47 percent in the APNIC region; 36 percent in the ARIN region; 49 in LACNIC; and a little over 52 percent in the RIPE region.
We’ve been tracking those numbers for several years now. And I have to say while it does show some progress, it’s showing some very slow progress. Those numbers have not changed drastically over the past couple of years.
And this is just the links to the RIR stats. You can find them at any one of those links. URLs. Any questions?
John Curran: Any questions for Leslie? No? Thank you.
Leslie Nobile: Thanks for your time.
ARIN-2012-6: Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size
John Curran: Okay. It is now after 2:00, which means we’re right on time for our Draft Policy session. Our first block has two policies up for consideration. The first one is ARIN Draft Policy 2012-6, which is revising Section 4.4 Critical Infrastructure Reserved Pool Size.
This policy originated as ARIN Proposition 177 in June 2012. AC shepherds are Bill Sandiford and Owen DeLong. The current version is the 5 September version of the text. And you have text and assessment online and in the Discussion Guide.
Summary. The proposal would modify the existing microallocation policy and have ARIN staff reserve a /15 equivalent for critical infrastructure rather than the /16 currently cited in the policy text. Additionally, it removes the clause that would allow ARIN to release any remaining space from the reserved block back into its available pool at the end of two years.
So we’re increasing the size of the pool and we’re removing the statement to have it go – the reserve pool go back into the available space.
Status at other RIRs. No similar proposals or discussions.
Staff assessment. The proposal obviously will benefit those who provide critical infrastructure, particularly the new expanded ICANN gTLD program. The following implementation guidelines need to be part of a policy that get added to NRPM when the equivalent of less than a /8 is left in inventory. If implemented, ARIN will prepend that statement to the policy text.
We want to have a clearer point at the point in time when we’re adding this additional text into the pool.
Implementation. Minimal. Three months. Not too hard to do.
Legal assessment. No significant legal issues.
PPML discussion. A lot of posts. Thirty-two posts by nine people; four in favor and zero against. Some of the more interesting comments: “Given ICANN’s discussions to significantly expand the number of gTLDs, I think expanding the critical infrastructure reservation from /16 to /15 is a reasonable precaution. However, my prediction is that a /15 should be sufficient for several years and other CI growth I’m thinking two to five years.”
“I think a /14 is more necessary” – sorry. “I think a /14 or more is necessary to deal with what ICANN is talking about, and that coincides with the two to five years I was talking about. If we want ten to 20 years worth, I think we need to be talking about something more like a /13.”
“Stepping back, do we believe there’s a need for long-term use of stable IPv4 addresses for services that a large portion of the network would be dependent upon.”
So that concludes the staff introduction of Draft Policy 2012-6, and I’ll now have the shepherds come up to present the AC presentation.
Bill Sandiford: Good afternoon, everyone. So a lot of the info in the AC presentation is similar to what you just saw from John. I have the actual policy text. I’ll leave it up for ten seconds or so for everyone to have a quick read. And I’ll come back to it at the end. I’ll put the slide back up as we’re doing our discussion.
The rationale, as stated, it was to increase the size of the critical infrastructure block given the impending runout of v4 and the fact that additional infrastructure might be coming online in the further years and existing block might not be good enough.
Staff and legal comments similar to what we just saw in John’s slide. The same with the legal review.
In the PPML discussion, almost all the comments that I read were – generally supported the policy. Those who actually stated such was pretty light. It was only four people. Some discussion continued about whether or not a /15 was actually a large enough block and we should be talking about a /14 or larger.
And in the last week or so the more interesting discussion came up, at least I personally found it interesting, was whether or not we need to have a reserve blocked for CI at all anymore, seeing that CI today might not be the same it was ten years ago, and begged the question that should CI providers be subject to the same IP address number challenges that everybody else is going to have on a going-forward-type basis.
That’s pretty much the slides from the shepherds’ view. We’ll have the discussion.
John Curran: We’ll have the discussion. Mr. Denton will moderate the discussion and Mr. Sandiford will assist.
Tim Denton: Seems to be a vast outpouring of people running to the microphones. Please make yourselves welcome. Please make everyone walk faster.
Owen DeLong: Owen DeLong, Hurricane Electric. I’m of mixed emotions about the policy. On the one hand, I can see making a case for gTLD and other gTLD operators having the force space to create these new TLDs and serve the vast Internet of people that haven’t got a clue enough to implement v6 yet for whatever reason and wish to be disconnected from an increasing portion of the Internet.
But, on the other hand, I think that there’s not necessarily that much justification to provide space to them to the exclusion of others that may also need it because they haven’t figured out that they need to implement v6 yet.
So I’m ambivalent.
Tim Denton: I think as a general rule we should state at the beginning whether you’re in favor or against the proposition and then state your reasons why.
Dave Siegel: Dave Siegel, Level 3. I’m neither for nor against. But I do have a question regarding the note that’s on the screen about how big the block should be. Is there any trend data showing what the allocation trend has been for CI address blocks?
John Curran: The allocations for CI are available online. I don’t recall them offhand. But I will look.
I guess my only – I will see if I can give you a trend of the current usage. This is definitely a case where past performance may be irrelevant to future need because of the introduction of the new gTLD program. But I’ll look and see if I can give you a trend in a moment.
Tim Denton: Mr. Farmer has a point of information, I believe.
David Farmer: David Farmer, University of Minnesota, ARIN AC. There’s a couple of emails from last week that covers some of that, and just a quick summary of it: There is very little trend to the data to be seen. It’s kind of almost random over the past number of years. So there’s not a useful trendline to –
Dave Siegel: Is there any kind of estimate of how long a /15 or a /14 would last?
Matt Pounsett: I can speak to that, if you want. Matt Pounsett from Afilias. The typical anycast deployment for a TLD is anywhere from 2 to 4 /24s. So a /15 at the rate ICANN is intending to release gTLDs will be burned in about eight weeks.
Tim Denton: Okay. I believe Bill Woodcock.
Bill Woodcock: Bill Woodcock, ARIN Board and Packet Clearing House. So I am for this but with a huge caveat similar to Owen’s.
Right now critical infrastructure is defined as exchange points and TLDs, and those have very different needs, and I think the public benefit implications of the two are very different.
While there are some commercially operated Internet exchange points, those are a tiny minority of the total, and the primary beneficiaries of Internet exchange points are the Internet community, whereas the primary beneficiaries of many of the new gTLDs, particularly the brand TLDs, are specific for-profit corporations that are very small constituencies by comparison.
Looking at this space, a /16 under the current policy, when the new gTLDs are allocated, PCH alone could submit a request that would take all of that /16. I know the same would be true for Google. I know the same would be true for donuts. There are a bunch of organizations that could each justify four times that amount on essentially day one.
So if we could split this out and make it available to Internet exchange points, that would benefit the entire Internet for a long time.
If we give exchange points and TLDs access to the same pool, it will be gone on day one and it won’t benefit exchange points at all, and that will make it very, very difficult for new market entrants in the Internet in the future.
Tim Denton: Thank you. I believe Jason was next.
Jason Schiller: Jason Schiller, Google and NRO NC. I wanted to supply some – oh. I support this policy.
I wanted to supply some stats with regard to the new gTLDs: 1,930 applications, 1,409 unique names have been requested, and 120 different suppliers. So you can make your estimate of how many /24s will be consumed by that.
If you’re looking at two to three /24s, somewhere between a /17 and a /12.
I also wanted to point out that the last time we discussed this policy we were given some stats and were told that there was the 192-block and the 199-block, which were pretty much reserved for this usage.
At that time there were closer to about 2,000 available /24s in the 199-block, and some 277 /24s in the other block, in the 192-block.
And I wanted to point out that this reservation of a /16 would be in addition to where the critical infrastructure is currently being assigned out of.
Tim Denton: Thank you. Matt, are you standing to speak again?
Matt Pounsett: I am.
Tim Denton: Please go ahead.
Matt Pounsett: Matt Pounsett from Afilias. So as I mentioned, a /15 of space even would not last very long as used by the TLDs.
If you do some quick math, it’s two to four /24s get used for a typical TLD anycast deployment. If you assume an average of three, that’s 170 TLDs supported by a /15.
ICANN’s releasing them at 20 per week, so you get about eight weeks of use out of that /15.
So I’m in favor of the policy proposal. However, as Woody mentioned, I think it’s important that something be done to protect that address space for exchange points. Those of us deploying TLDs will eat it up immediately.
I think it’s important that TLDs still be able to justify their use of addresses for anycast out of the CI policy. But I’m not sure that it benefits the community if the TLDs are drawing from the same pool as exchange points.
Tim Denton: I believe Mr. – thank you. I believe Mr. Vixie had a point.
Paul Vixie: I do. I want to note a couple of things. Clarity and understanding is improvable, because the policy text on the screen refers to placing an equivalent of a /15.
This will be dribs and drabs. It will not be a block. And yet in this conversation we’re all talking about blocks, and some of us are hearing that and are thinking it will be a contiguous block. It will not be.
I think that the policy needs to make that clearer.
I also want to note that my company ISC is also a TLD provider but will not be using unique IP address blocks for each TLD we support. We don’t do that now. We won’t do that in the future.
So I support what Woody said and I support this policy in general, where we have to clarify what we mean by critical infrastructure. Because if someone is coming to ARIN to get a CI allocation on the basis of the fact that they’re going to be operating TLD infrastructure, they should have to justify why they need unique address space for each TLD.
And to put those remarks in context, let’s just say that it stays at a /15 rather than a /12 as been proposed by some.
If it disappears, then those dribs and drabs are all in the routing table. And I don’t think that the introduction of a few thousand TLDs per year should automatically mean that we have a few ten thousands of new routing table entries per year when they are not technically necessary.
So I think since we’re talking about dribs and drabs, I think a total impact – Environmental Impact Report should say that a total impact of /15 is about right for the future, the entire future history of the CI proposal, and that TLDs should be required to qualify very carefully as to why they need each block.
Tim Denton: Scott Leibrand.
Scott Leibrand: Scott Leibrand, ARIN Advisory Council. I am not yet in support or opposed to this. I think, if asked, I would say I support the idea but not necessarily the text.
My concerns are couplefold, the issue Woody mentioned and the issue I brought up on the list is I think an important one.
The way I brought it up on the list is we have a number of for-profit entities that are paying very large amounts for TLDs and could acquire the address space needed to support those, either via the efficient method that Paul was referring to or even if they wanted to do so inefficiently at a fairly reasonable cost relative to the amount that they’re spending.
In other words, if you’re going to – if you need a 24 to run the new TLD, you can get it on the transfer market. That’s not going to be an onerous burden.
So I’m not entirely sure that we should be reserving the free pool for use on that.
Another point to what Matt said about this getting all used up by the new TLDs, if that happens in eight weeks, it will occur before v4 runout has even occurred.
So there’s nothing to stop the general free pool to be used for this. I think it’s important that we have the ability when it’s technically justified to have /24s be given out for CI. That’s what the CI policy does.
You can’t get a 24 just for anything, but you can for these particular purposes.
I’m not convinced that for TLD purposes it’s necessary to reserve space that could be acquired via the general free pool or the transfer market.
Tim Denton: Thank you. Dan Alexander and then Bill. Okay, Bill.
Bill Woodcock: Bill Woodcock again. I would like to propose a different resolution to this problem that is a little controversial but I think aligns incentives properly.
I’d like to propose we remove the minimum allocation size on critical infrastructure assignments. It has long been held that it’s not the RIR’s responsibility to ensure routability of space. So if someone comes with a new gTLD and says I have a name server, I need an IPv4 address for it, us giving them 256 just because someone else will only accept a /24 does not make things better. It runs us out of space faster. It ensures that 255 of those 256 addresses will not be used.
It doesn’t give them a mechanism or any leverage or a future path for making things better. Okay.
So if we were literally giving out /32s of IPv4 address space to each person who comes along with a critical infrastructure need for a new gTLD name server, a /15 would last a good long time and we would not have a problem.
Okay. So that’s the name server side of it. On the exchange point side of it, exchange point subnets need to be big enough to accommodate all the future participants in that exchange point.
So sometimes that means 256. Sometimes that means 512. The very largest exchange points the world’s ever seen have been about 700 participants. But the vast majority of exchange points are around a dozen to two dozen.
And the exchange point subnet does not need to be globally routable. It needs to be unique space so it doesn’t conflict with RFC 1918 space. But it is not advertised into the global routing table and it does not need to be accepted by anyone into the routing table because it’s only used for BGP connectivity across a single subnet.
Therefore, exchange points, many of them would be perfectly happy with a /26, say, or a /27 even.
So I think neither party would be harmed by the removal of the minimum allocation from critical infrastructure. It would solve the runout problem. It would solve the equity problem. It would solve the problem of us having to determine whether or not new gTLDs really are critical infrastructure in the public benefit, and it would move things in the direction we need to go in the long run, which is people using v4 only where it really needs to be used.
Tim Denton: Thank you, Bill. I’ll take it you’re against the proposition as drafted. Mr. Alexander.
Dan Alexander: Dan Alexander, Comcast. Against the proposal as it is, simply because of the reservation of address space. Woody captured a lot of the comments I was trying to wrestle with on the Mailing List, because I was one of the people that – I stirred up the comment of critical infrastructure ten years ago is not the same as critical infrastructure as it is today.
And we really have to kind of question when ICANN expanded the gTLD space, is that really critical infrastructure that needs space reserved specifically for them.
Because if a registry wants to create dot some name that hasn’t already been applied for, does that really break or hinder the growth of the Internet, versus, to Woody’s point, whether there’s space therefore in exchange point.
Tim Denton: Thank you. Who is going first? Mr. Farmer.
David Farmer: David Farmer, University of Minnesota, ARIN AC. My views of the proposal are evolving probably at the moment against as drafted, but I think we need to do something.
In response to Woody’s observation, I just wanted to point out that there is Section 4.10, the dedicated IPv4-block for facilitating v6 deployment. Among a number of things that are listed in it is dual stack, key dual-stack DNS servers, so we have a block that we are allowing smaller, I kind of like the idea of allowing smaller blocks. I think we would need to change the way we’re allocating CI, which I’m not opposed to either. Because from a routing policy point of view, I think a number of – we’re going to allow smaller than /24 assignments, we want to know where those are coming from rather than have them scattered all over the place.
I think that was my comments.
Tim Denton: Thank you. Martin Levy next.
Martin Levy: Martin Levy, Hurricane Electric. I have to disagree with Woody with regards to the smaller than /24 item which does affect how this gets looked at.
Tim Denton: For the proposition or against as drafted?
Martin Levy: Sorry. Against the name server for the Internet exchange, which way does that make me. I think everybody’s got a split decision on this in some form.
Internet exchange blocks do need to be routed. It’s a protocol issue for Path MTU discovery, less so for trace routes to work properly.
The point is correct: You can’t use private IP space, but you have to use routed space. You just have to be very careful how you route it.
So I would like to at least be on record to disagree with Woody on the ability to use smaller than /24s. However, I’m still scratching my head as to why name servers become at the gTLD level critical infrastructure. There’s a subtle difference between critical infrastructure at the root name server than there is at the TLD level.
It’s subtle. And as much as there are a lot of gTLDs being released into the wild, the reality is that I can’t get my head around why the name servers come out of critical infrastructure when there’s plenty of ways of doing name servers today. And I understand that that means that new players might have a harder time getting into the market.
That’s no different than a new ISP or broadband provider getting into the market. I see 100 percent analogy there.
Also the about the name servers and Internet exchanges, similar policy exists in other regions to handle Internet exchange growth in Europe, Latin America, here, et cetera. Name servers are far more global. So I take this sort of out of the ARIN camp and say it’s a more global issue as to finding space for – if that’s what people decide to do.
So against the name server part, for the Internet exchange part but want to reaffirm the minimum /24 requirement that’s needed.
Tim Denton: Thank you.
Martin Hannigan: Martin Hannigan. I’m for the policy or proposal. At the time I offered this proposal, to Matt’s point, the digital archery system, the way that ICANN had proposed to actually proceed and release the batches of gTLD, was in disarray.
The arrows were turned on the community, and there was really no way to predict what was and what wasn’t going to actually go forward. I still think it’s a really difficult problem to solve.
I think all this proposal was intended to do was just change an existing practice, to Paul’s point, the word “equivalent” was in the previous policy. That may have been my fault because I was the author of the previous policy as well.
I like Bill Woodcock’s idea. First time in 25 years I’m going to agree with Bill. I think we should remove the minimum allocation for this. I will note that he’s correct that exchange point allocations are generally not routed. They don’t need to be. There are a few. I’m going to point them out to him, and there’s one that I believe is my fault, and I’ll take care of that.
And as far as utilization of the current policy, there are both commercial entities and nonprofit entities that have benefited from the existing CI practices.
I don’t think that we need to rethink this. I think we either need to do it or completely get rid of it. Thank you.
Andrew Sullivan: My name is Andrew Sullivan. I work for Dyn. I’m sort of ambivalent with a mild not support of this policy. But the reason I’m here is because if we’re really serious about the idea that gTLD name servers are not critical infrastructure, then we are effectively saying that delegations out of the root are not a critical operation and we’re making comments about that.
There’s no way you can do anything underneath the gTLD without having the name servers. It has to be critical infrastructure or else we’re making a decision about the way the root is being – is doing delegations.
Chris Grundemann: Chris Grundemann. I think that I have to agree that DNS in general is critical for the infrastructure of the Internet. The Internet doesn’t operate without it. However, new gTLDs are not necessarily critical to keep the Internet running.
Tim Denton: Remember –
Chris Grundemann: I’m against the proposal.
Tim Denton: Thank you. Carry on. I didn’t mean to cut you off.
Chris Grundemann: That was it. I think that we already have DNS. It already works. And adding extra domain names is not necessarily mandatory to keep the Internet running, or doesn’t even necessarily make the Internet run better. Some might argue it would make it run worse. However, things like Internet exchanges, the more of them that there are, the better the Internet will run.
So the critical infrastructure moniker is misleading.
Tim Denton: Thank you.
Michael Sinatra: Michael Sinatra, ESnet. I’m for the proposal but I would like substantial additional work to be done along the lines of what Bill Woodcock and Paul Vixie and Owen are suggesting.
In terms of DNS being a critical infrastructure but the new gTLDs not, I don’t know where to draw the line. Because I don’t know whether to say that whether .Microsoft is not critical but .com is. Where are we going to draw that line? I think it’s going to be a difficult problem as the new gTLDs come online. If we think DNS is critical infrastructure, then it’s critical infrastructure.
I support the policy, but we should do additional work.
I’d like to make a suggestion to the chair. I know how much you like this, Tim, but maybe have two votes, which is one is: Do we want this policy as written and the second is we want to continue to work on it even if the policy is accepted as written. Even if there’s overwhelming support in this room, can we keep moving on this and do additional stuff to make this policy work better.
Tim Denton: I don’t see any problem with that proposition in principle.
I don’t see anyone else to line up to vote.
John Curran: Any remote participants?
Ron Grant: Ron Grant, Skyway West. I’m ambivalent about the proposal, but I’d like to ask if there’s anywhere else in the ARIN policy where critical infrastructure is defined, or is this the only place?
John Curran: In this policy is presently the only reference. Well, it’s not a defined term in a definition. We have not pulled it out. We can do so, but it’s not presently there.
The existing critical infrastructure policy is where that term actually exists. There’s not a separate definition for what is critical infrastructure.
David Farmer: David Farmer, University of Minnesota, ARIN AC. I would just say there’s two critical infrastructure policies, one for v4 and one for v6.
We’re only talking about the one here. So this isn’t a unique thing. It’s in both sort of pieces of our addressing.
John Curran: I think the first vote should be – anything you would like to add?
Tim Denton: I think the first vote we should have is for or against the proposition as drafted and then we’ll move on to variants of how and what further work should be done.
So where are our vote takers? Okay. So then I’d like to see hands raised high for those who are in favor of the proposition as drafted. Raise them high. Keep them high until your blood stops flowing.
Tim Denton: Until I get a signal from Mr. Stratton or Mary K. Down. Down. Thank you very much.
Those against the proposition as drafted, please raise your hands.
Thank you very much. I think before we get the vote on that, then we can go on to what the next one should be.
John Sweeting: I had a quick question. Is there anybody out there who thinks we need to do more work on a clearer definition on a going-forward basis of what critical infrastructure is? There seems to be some divergence in the room in terms of what is critical infrastructure.
So are there those who think we need more work on defining critical infrastructure? A forest of hands.
Tim Denton: Okay. So the results are, as advice to the AC, those in favor of the proposition as drafted were ten; those against, 33.
Now I’d like to canvass the room for the second idea, which is those in favor of having this idea considered but in two ways, one for exchange points, differently from those for – sorry, what was it? TLDs.
John Curran: Right, gTLDs.
Tim Denton: So it will split the consideration of this motion, one for exchange points and one for gTLDs, so that we would carry on the work, you want further work to be done, and it would be appropriate to exchange points or gTLDs. Differently. Separately.
So those in favor of that idea, would they raise their hand.
John Curran: I want to ask a clarifying question. So a vote yes is you want the AC to continue to work breaking this into two pieces, one for exchange points and gTLDs.
A vote no is you don’t want the AC to do that work.
Tim Denton: That is correct. The idea is: Do you want the AC to continue work on this, work on it separately or independently for gTLDs and separately, independently for exchange points. Will you please raise your hands if you’re in favor of that idea.
Okay. A vote no at this point would say you don’t want them to continue to consider the idea. So those against the proposition? Okay. I see no hands raised. Any remote participants? So it comes to no surprise to those looking around the room that there’s a consensus in favor of.
Consensus exists in favor of the work being continued so that exchange points are treated differently or independently from gTLDs and that it’s 30 to nothing. Thank you very much.
There’s that portion.
John Curran: Thank you, everyone.
ARIN-2012-8: Aligning 8.2 And 8.3 Transfer Policy
John Curran: We’re doing very well and we’re right on time. The second policy to be considered in our policy discussions is ARIN Policy 2012-8: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy.
I’d like to invite Chris Grundemann up to – I’ll do the slides and have Chris come up.
History. It was proposed in June 2012 as ARIN Proposal 175. The AC shepherds, Chris Grundemann and David Farmer. The current version text is the 5th of September text. The text and discussion and – the text and assessment are online and in the Discussion Guide.
The Draft Policy attempts to align 8.2 transfer with 8.3 and 8.4 transfers by adding some additional common criteria to 8.2. It codifies the minimum size of address blocks that can be transferred. It requires the recipient of a transfer to sign an RSA and it codifies the requirement that the source entity of the transfer be the current registrant and not engage in dispute over the registration rights.
Status at other RIRs. No similar proposals or discussions.
Staff concerns. No comments as previous comments were addressed. Implementation. Minimal. Three months. Would require some updated guidelines and staff training.
Legal assessment: A bit. Yes. Any change to NRPM 8.2 requires heightened legal scrutiny because literally hundreds of different disparate proposed 8.2 acquisitions may be considered within the next several years under changed language.
The language reference in the use of RSA may need to permit the issuance of an LRSA if resources are legacy addresses that have not previously been the subject of an RSA.
The following new language needs careful community review. And the council believes the proposed language is acceptable – sorry. Council believes proposed language requires 8.2 recipient to demonstrate the Number Resources are part of an ongoing business that is being sold and that the Number Resources are utilized by the business.
It would be unwise to adopt language in 8.2 that would arguably permit 8.2 transfer where the Number Resources are the only generally valuable asset of the business.
If the community agrees this is the case, the language does not – sorry. Let me continue here. If the Number Resources are the only generally valuable remaining material assets of the business, which is now defunct, the transfer has to be considered under NRPM 8.3, not 8.2. If the community agrees that’s the case, the language does not pose problematic legal issues.
So it’s making sure we have an agreements on how ARIN would actually process requests here.
PPML discussion. Very little. One post by one person, not clearly in favor or against.
I’ll have Chris Grundemann come up and do the AC introduction to the policy.
Chris Grundemann: Thanks. So basically this policy had three goals. I guess I’ll first point out that originally this proposal came in from the originator to basically delete Section 8.2, the M&A transfer section, and force all transfers to go through the 8.3 specified transfer section, which that initial idea was basically rejected by the community, and others as well, that it didn’t look like an actual workable solution.
But when talking to the author, we found that his main goal was to make sure that the protections that had been added when we wrote the 8.3 specified transfer policy and then subsequently 8.4 were also applied to M&A transfers.
And so then the goals we fleshed out were to lower confusion, raise clarity, and ensure that there was a level bar between transfers.
Obviously, not all restrictions can apply equally to both M&A transfers and specified transfers, because they are different animals, but there are some that can and should apply.
So basically those changes come in three forms here. The source must be the undisputed current registrant holder. That’s something that can be applied to both types of transfers and is now in the proposed language. The recipient must sign an RSA and is subject to RIR policy. And then a minimum size of transfer, a /24 for IPv4 and /48 for v6.
So this is the current policy text. And I won’t hold on that too much. I just wanted it in the slides in case you want to refer back to it in the discussion.
And the new policy obviously becomes a little bit longer because it adds in just the bullettized format those goals I just talked about.
You see the first bullet is that source entity must be the current registered holder of the Number Resources and not be involved in any dispute.
The second one is that the new entity must provide evidence that they have acquired assets, not just – this is – this is the bullet that’s kind of the existing policy carried over. This is not a specified transfer. It’s actually a transfer of a business. It’s a merger and acquisition, not just selling addresses.
The third bullet says they’ll be subject to current ARIN policies.
The fourth one, that they must sign an RSA. And it does say an RSA. So I think legal’s concern is addressed there. I think it’s any RSA. It doesn’t say specifically what agreement needs to be signed.
And then the last two bullets are of course the minimum sizes.
So I went through that fairly quickly. I just want to make sure we had time for discussion, because I think it’s fairly straight-forward what’s going on here, and probably more time to discuss the merits is warranted.
John Curran: We’ll have the chair moderate the discussion of this policy proposal and Chris will help him out. Microphones open.
Tim Denton: Mr. DeLong, how nice to see you again.
Owen DeLong: Owen DeLong, Hurricane Electric. I actually support this proposal. Not wild about the title because I think it’s misleading because rather than actually merging the criteria of the two types of transfers, I think this does a much better job of clarifying the differences between them and applying appropriate criteria to each of them.
However, the title isn’t really part of what becomes part of the NRPM. So, the title notwithstanding, I support the proposal and encourage others to do the same.
Tim Denton: Thank you.
Scott Leibrand: Scott Leibrand, ARIN AC. So I’d like to make sure that I’m clearly understanding what’s changing, because there is a lot of clarification in here, which is good, but doesn’t change things a lot. So I’m just generally in favor of that. To Tim’s point, I’m probably in favor of the proposal as written.
But I’d like to make sure – so we’re adding that in order to do an 8.2 transfer you have to have an RSA. That’s not in there today, correct?
Chris Grundemann: Correct. It’s not in the policy language. Now, there is a question here that what stats current – what stats current practice is –
Scott Leibrand: As far as policy, we’re adding that to the policy.
Chris Grundemann: Yes.
Scott Leibrand: It seems like we’re locking it down just a little bit to make it clear if you do an 8.2 transfer, there has to be more than just a shell with some IP addresses in it. We are making sure that’s a going concern and anything else gets shifted off to the side to 8.3.
Those are the two things that I see as actual policy changes in there. Is there anything else, John?
John Curran: So I’m going to talk about an edge case that comes up. But it’s something to think about. In general, ARIN right now in processing 8.2 will respect, and there’s a list of documents that we respect, that says business X has been bought by entity A and it’s transferring the equipment using the network numbers, and the network numbers and the whole business has been acquired.
If you create a business, which is an operational business, that has four computers and a /30, and you sell it, theoretically, under 8.2 right now, you have an operating business. You’re selling it to another party. It’s a bill of sale. Under 8.2 presently we recognize that transfer. They’re fully utilized. You have four addresses and four computers.
This makes clear that that transaction divides address space, because you’re selling a business or a portion of a business and you’re creating effectively a /30 prefix in the process, and that that would not be allowed.
This probably isn’t a big issue. But it does close a loophole on people slicing up address blocks through subdivision of their business. That’s the only thing I’ve materially been able to determine would be significantly different compared to current policy.
Scott Leibrand: Thank you.
Cathy Aronson: I have a remote participant. Cristoph Blecker from Mark Anthony Group: I support this proposal. However, it is worth clarifying that the RSA – that the RSA that the entity would sign is only for the resources being transferred under this policy.
Oh, I guess he’s asking that, is it only for the resources under this policy.
The previous bullet is specified and mentions transferred resources, but the RSA bullet does not.
John Curran: This makes clear the existing practice that the recipient entity signs an RSA. It doesn’t change the practice. It makes it clear, though, it’s specifically the recipient signing the RSA.
Cathy Aronson: He’s asking what resources, the ones being transferred or all the resources the person has.
John Curran: You’re right. It would be nice if the AC would say the recipient entity will sign an RSA for the resources being transferred, which would be the staff interpretation.
Tim Denton: Now that we’ve understood how the staff are going to interpret it, Mr. Farmer.
David Farmer: David Farmer, University of Minnesota, ARIN AC.
I was originally opposed to this policy, I’m lightening up on that and might even support it eventually.
Tim Denton: Presumably before the vote.
David Farmer: I have advantages to other people in the room. I get a different vote. But that’s fine.
I’m concerned what – so part of the discussion that happened on the list regarding this was what are we expecting of folks that make transfers under maximum allocation transfers and do they have the right to an LRSA, and this was kind of brought up a little bit under – so if they’re legacy resources, et cetera, et cetera.
John Curran: Let me make it really easy. So for all non-legacy resources, it’s going to be under an RSA. For legacy resources for whom the transfer occurs before ARIN’s inception, like there were all these telecom companies or computer companies and they acquired each other, you have to recognize the fact that when ARIN was formed, we agreed to provide service to the holder of record.
It may not be the right record right now, and sometimes we have trouble getting it updated, but they can enter an LRSA. We have a process to let them do that.
Other than the entity of record when we are formed, the LRSA is not available.
We have had a court case where we decided it was prudent to make sure the policies were enforced and we provide an LRSA. The terms of the LRSA and RSA right now are materially almost identical.
If anyone can find a material difference between our current LRSA and our current RSA, other than the fee schedule, I will buy you a drink. Okay?
There is no difference between these documents at this point. So I don’t think the question really matters, other than the fee schedule.
But if you are going to do a transfer, you’ll end up with the RSA at the end of the day in the vast majority of cases. If you’re cleaning up a transaction that took place before ARIN, you may end up with an LRSA. Got it?
David Farmer: Okay. Just to clarify what you just said, if the trend – if this is a belated M&A transfer, that the documentation of the M&A transfer was pre-1997 –
John Curran: That is taken care of independent of 8.2.
David Farmer: Cool.
John Curran: We always recognize the holder of record at ARIN’s formation. Sometimes we find that out ten years later.
David Farmer: Okay. Okay. I think that covers what I was asking for now.
Tim Denton: Sir, you’re next.
Mike Joseph: Mike Joseph, Google. I oppose this proposal as written. There are a couple flaws with it. The biggest is that it requires a number of intermediate transfers. Specifically, if you have a circumstance where an M&A activity has leapfrogged a registrant, which can happen, it requires that the addresses be transferred to the intermediate entity, which may or may not currently exist, because it may cease to exist at the conclusion of the M&A activity. This would then render the addresses untransferrable in this policy.
Even if they’re untransferrable because the entity exists, it may not be possible for the address space to be retained under the qualifying criteria for 8.2.
This creates real problems for entities that are involved in legitimate M&A transactions wherein the space would be properly utilized had the transfer chain be allowed to complete.
The second issue that this policy presents is that it requires that the recipient – it requires the sole contributing factor to the justification to be the source entity’s utilization, which is problematic because it may be the case that source entity is mostly utilized in the address space, but that a minimal amount of underutilization could be remedied by the receiving entity which has unmet need.
And you could vary the ratios quite substantially there, but you’d end up with the same net effect where the space would be allowed to transfer through a series of – through legitimate M&A activity results in utilized and justified address space tied to legitimate network assets, but would be precluded by two different terms of this policy.
Other than those two problems, being the first two bullet points, if those were stricken, the rest of the policy would be redundant with already content in the NRPM, therefore I oppose this policy.
Tim Denton: Thank you.
Cathy Aronson had the next person up.
Cathy Aronson: I have a remote participant again, Rich Lewis from Oracle. He says he’s against the proposal. He asks: Are there any statistics on the number of resources potentially in ARIN that are not covered by an RSA?
John Curran: Could you repeat that? Just want to try to answer the right question.
Cathy Aronson: Sure. It says: Are there any statistics on the number of resources potentially in ARIN that are not currently covered by an RSA?
John Curran: Our estimate is that 40 percent of the address space in the region, approximately, is legacy address space.
We’ve had a significant number of LRSA holders who hold Class A blocks signed LRSAs, so I don’t know what portion of that 40 percent is under some agreement. But the 40 percent is the – Leslie does. Leslie, would you like to address that?
Leslie Nobile: This is in one of my slides for Friday, but we show that 50 percent of the total v4 address space in the ARIN database is not covered by any type of RSA. 42 percent is covered by standard RSA, and 8 percent is covered by legacy RSA. The total /24s in our database are 6,548,828.
John Curran: Wonderful. Much better than estimates.
Tim Denton: Owen.
Owen DeLong: Owen DeLong, Hurricane Electric. I’m trying to wrap my head around Mike Joseph’s comments and failing miserably.
As I read the policy statement, the new entity recipient must provide evidence that they have acquired assets that use the resources transferred from the current registrant. I don’t see anything in that that requires it to be direct; that prevents leapfrogging or anything else.
As long as they’ve acquired assets through some path, no matter how many entities were involved that use the resources that the source recipient had registered, it seems to be just fine.
Chris Grundemann: The first bullet is what keeps it from leapfrogging, not the second.
Owen DeLong: No, because that just says that the source entity must be the current registered holder.
Chris Grundemann: Right. So there’s an intermediary that no longer exists, then they’re not the registered holder. If there have been multiple transfers over time, they’re just not coming up to clean up records, it’s possible that there’s middle –
Owen DeLong: The registered holder is whoever is in the database. So if it was transferred to somebody else, then the original entity is not relevant at all.
Chris Grundemann: He can answer for himself, but I think the problem is if the person who is registered in the database no longer exists and there’s no way to contact them, and there’s a current holder that’s not registered trying to transfer the assets through selling their company, they may be barred from doing so under this policy, I think was his complaint.
Owen DeLong: Okay. Well, yeah, okay. So the source entity still has to exist, yes. If that’s the case, there’s problems any way. And I’m not sure how that gets addressed under current policy any better than this.
So and then the other comment he had was that the justification was based on the source entity’s continued usage, but I don’t see that either.
John Curran: Can I ask a question of clarification for the shepherd or author?
So, as written, this says that they have acquired assets that use the resources such that their continued need is justified. So number resources that aren’t presently in use are impossible to transfer under 8.2 under this revised formulation, because you’re only transferring the ones whose continual need is justified.
Under present 8.2, we look at the entity and we look at their need based on the existing policies, and that includes anticipated need.
It’s unclear whether or not this says that a party who has no – has underutilized – nonutilized resources, is there any leeway, or if you do a transaction under 8.2, is the intent of this policy that only number resources in immediate use are being transferred?
This isn’t something that occurred to the staff on review in our multiple reviews, but in looking at it now, someone could argue that only a number resource that’s actively in use can be transferred under this M&A 8.2. So I’m interested in what the proposal authors or shepherds want to say.
Chris Grundemann: So as the shepherd, I crafted the text, and the intention was to not change anything from current operations or current practices but rather to clarify them. And so the idea here is the acquired assets are at least able or capable of using these addresses. Because if you’re buying equipment that you have addresses for, you don’t need the addresses that are coming with the equipment, and if you’re buying addresses that don’t have equipment, then you should be in a specified transfer.
So maybe the text isn’t as clear as it could be. But the idea is to only transfer assets or only transfer numbers that are tied to assets. Whether or not the assets are turned on or not I don’t think is an issue.
Mike Joseph: It’s common to – it’s too convenient to separate those two, because they don’t separate cleanly. I think John can probably point out that most M&A transfers have a mix of IPs and assets and they may not line up 100 percent, but you may end up in the end with a good utilization and a legitimate transfer chain to force them to be inexorably separated to choose either 8.3 or 8.2 for any given transaction.
Qualifying criteria is the issue, right? I mean, if you – when you acquire a company, you find a block may be 70 percent used or 60 percent used and you’re acquiring the assets and you have unmet need, it should be an 8.2 transfer, because that’s what it’s written for.
John Curran: Actually, can I comment? Someone pointed out to me: Because the policy statement of this Draft Policy says it replaces the first paragraph of Section 8.2, the second paragraph of 8.2 is still operational, which says we have to assess – basically it says where in the circumstance that ARIN will work with the resource holders to return aggregate transfer or reclaim.
So it is clear that in the event that the number resources are no longer justified under ARIN policy, we have some flexibility there in the use of the interpretation. But I do think – I do think it’s difficult because this says the only resources that are transferred are ones that are in use.
And the second paragraph implies that unutilized resources can come as long as they are still within our utilization guidelines. And that should be clarified.
Tim Denton: Okay. Jason.
Jason Schiller: Jason Schiller, Google. And I was trying to respond to Owen’s concerns about his two questions. The first one was with regard to the multiple jumping-through-hoops issue. That’s an issue where Company A is the registrant of record. It gets purchased by Company B. Company A gets dissolved. Company B never updates the records. And then Company C comes along and buys Company B. In this case Company B is not the registrant of record.
This is problematic. And the only way you can fix this is to transfer the assets to Company B and then transfer them to Company C.
And if the utilization of those assets is below 80 percent, not efficient, when you transfer them from Company A to Company B, you could potentially lose some of those addresses.
Mike Joseph: If the company B doesn’t exist anymore, it can’t execute the transfer agreement.
Tim Denton: Are you posing a question, Jason, or are you –
Jason Schiller: I’m responding to Owen’s concerns. He didn’t see how Mike’s objection was problematic, and I’m trying to explain the first objection, how it’s problematic.
Jason Schiller: Well, the current policy you can still execute a transfer, because you can show that the current rightsholder – that you are the current rightsholder; that a company existed that had then allocated the addresses, that that company changed hands to another company, and that company changed hands to another company.
So you can show the chain of custody there, that you are the current rightsholder, even though you are not the registrant on record.
And then the second issue – I have support for the concept of let’s not allow people to, nudge-nudge/wink-wink, pretend like it’s an M&A transfer when all they’re doing is buying the addresses.
The problem comes in is, as written, if I come in and I buy a company lock, stock, and barrel, or I buy a business segment of that company – say the company does multiple things. One of them is to provide transit to customers. And I provide the network that – I purchase the network that provides transit to that customer, purchase all of those assets, purchase the entire customer base, but if those addresses are less than 80 percent utilized, I’m going to potentially lose some of those addresses in the merger and acquisition even when post acquisition and merger I can show that the utilization is greater than 80 percent.
And these two new restrictions I believe are problematic. I’m not sure if they were intended.
John Curran: Regarding the transitive property of acquisitions, we simply need to know from the AC, and the community obviously needs to guide the AC as to whether or not we should recognize such, because a transaction that occurs where Company J buys Company K in 2004 and now K is bought by someone else this year, they may not have the assets that we’re using the resources in 2004.
So the policy as read literally says we’re processing both of these and you need to have been using the assets. But they may still be having the same customers and running the same network.
And so we really need at ARIN, in a policy like this, is we just need the guidance of are we to recognize the intent of the policy with respect to serial transactions or not, because if they’re firing the assets and then the customers that are associated with them, even if they were associated with something different before, we can proceed if that’s what the community wants.
If that’s what the community doesn’t want, I ask you make it clear.
Jason Schiller: I think that’s exactly correct and addresses one of the two concerns. I think the other concern is this current rightsholder versus current registrant. But I think that’s an easy language fix, and I guess it’s worth pointing out that the phrase “current rightsholders” does show up in Section 8.4, so it’s not new language.
Tim Denton: Just for my clarification, you may have said this already, are you in favor of the proposition as drafted?
Jason Schiller: As written I oppose.
Tim Denton: You oppose. Okay. Thank you.
Chris Grundemann: To comment on those two points again as well, from the perspective of draft new language here. The main point of that the transfer recipient must be getting resources from the transfer – the person who is doing the transfer, the acquired business, must be the current registrant was tied to the existing policy language.
You can see here the existing language that says that ARIN will consider requests for this transfer of Number Resources in the case of mergers and acquisitions upon receipt of evidence that the new entity has acquired assets that used the transferred resources from the current registrant. So that was a non-change into the new policy text. Intentionally so.
I think that this issue of serial transactions that happen off the books is one that absolutely needs to be addressed. It is not one that we were attempting to address with this policy change.
The second thing, and, again, there may be a need for language clarification here, but just to clarify the intent, the language here is very – is very carefully to say that the use of the resources transferred from the current registrant such that their continued need is justified.
So, in other words, after you make the transfer, do you actually need these addresses, not before you do the transfer. So is continuing need for these addresses present post merger and acquisition activity. And I think that if you’re doing this merger and you’re reorganizing the networks, as long as you can prove that you need the resources coming with the assets, the intent is that that would be acceptable, not that if you’re below 80 percent before the transaction in one of the companies that you would be blocked from doing the transfer.
But it may need clarification. But the intent is not to be based on the source entities’ utilization level.
Tim Denton: Missed you over there.
Gabe Fried: Gabe Fried with Hilco Streambank. If I understand the last clarification correctly, then the possible unintended outcome of this is to create a waiting circumstance where, to Mike’s example, I’m now three steps up in the food chain, I want to make these resources registered currently, but I’m now just going to sit on the sidelines and not fill out the paperwork until my need catches up with that opportunity?
Is that – I mean, it seems to me that this is a little bit of a jumping on the waterbed where I’m just pushing this, the same outcome is going to happen, it’s just going to happen because now the top-of-the-food-chain acquirer is going to be forced to wait. And in doing so, by the way, may still maintain their eligibility for free resources.
Tim Denton: So, Gabe, I take it, then, that you would not be in favor of the proposition as written.
Gabe Fried: I’m asking for clarification.
Tim Denton: You’re asking for clarification from Chris?
Chris Grundemann: I think that’s an argument for not allowing those serial transactions that happen off the books to just be blessed immediately.
But, again, the idea here is that you’re transferring a company, and the reason you need the addresses to be transferred with the company is because of the assets that are coming along with it.
So if we take away justified need, then you’re effectively going back to just erasing this policy and doing everything as specified transfers, which is an option that was fairly rejected the first time it came up but could potentially come up later as just making this open.
But if we’re going to really have an M&A policy that you’re transferring addresses because you’re buying a network, then I don’t see any way to get around having to show that you actually need the addresses along with the network.
John Curran: The challenge that people need to keep in mind is that many parties doing these transactions complete them and then run around updating paperwork afterwards.
It’s a lot like when you move. You move to your new address and you’re in there and you’re surrounded by moving boxes that you’re unpacking, and then you start calling credit card companies up and mailing addresses and banks and changing it.
Not the right way to do it, by the way, but a lot of people do. You update all the records after the fact. Many people engage in M&A transactions will do the transaction and then some happy guy in network engineering is stuck updating all the records and it’s six months afterwards.
So the challenge we need to keep in mind is some of these M&As will be entered into by parties who haven’t even looked at this policy until after the fact, and we need guidance as a staff what you want us to do.
Saying that they’re going to roll back the transaction isn’t going to happen. The question is what happens to the resources in light of the transaction having been completed.
Tim Denton: Mike.
Mike Joseph: To your earlier point about the language, if we could go back to the slide that you were pointing out the current language.
The issue here is that the language in here refers to evidence that the assets used by the current registrant has been acquired. But if you go to the new language, the language here indicates the source entity must be the current registrant.
It’s unclear what source entity here is referring to. But if it’s referring to the source entity as in the entity which is sold, then that creates the problematic conflict.
So I think the definitions here are a little bit too loose, because, again, if the source entity is the entity that you bought in the M&A transaction, then that’s quite a distinct interpretation than the previous wording which refers to the assets having continuity between the entities, and then the IP space, of course, being tied to those assets.
And then to your other point, however, on the new policy language, if you are referring to – if you’re asserting that the first paragraph of the new policy language is the same and you’re referring – and you’re asserting that the second part of the policy language is not that distinct from the current policy, what exactly are you proposing to change here?
Chris Grundemann: In Section 8.2 today, there are two paragraphs. We are only changing the first paragraph. The second paragraph, which states that if you can’t transfer all of the assets through an M&A transfer, you’re allowed to do a specified transfer also.
So, again, maybe to the waive point as well, if you’re buying assets and you can’t actually justify that those assets match the resources, if you can justify that you need the resources anyway, you can still do a specified transfer in addition to this M&A transfer. That’s all on the second paragraph, which is not being changed.
Mike Joseph: Yeah, but the specified transfer creates a lot of complications for companies, particularly with the rest of the blackout windows around specified transfers. Imagine you purchase a company that has mostly utilized IP space, and then some portion that is not utilized, if you’re forced to acquire that space through a specified transfer at the time you acquire the company and then later want to divest yourself of that IP space for financial gain, you’re then put into a bit of a bind there because you’ve acquired a 3.3 and therefore you can’t retransfer it.
So, again, what I’m really asking is: What are you trying to accomplish with this that’s not, I mean, already in policy, other than some language twisting that seems unfortunate?
Seriously, it’s a genuine –
Tim Denton: Is the question rhetorical, or is it –
Mike Joseph: No, no, I really want to understand. Because you’ve asserted that the first paragraph – we disagree that the first paragraph is not – you assert the first paragraph is the same. I say it’s not. But the second paragraph –
Chris Grundemann: The second paragraph is not even involved in the policy.
Mike Joseph: When I say paragraph, I’m referring to bullet point. I apologize.
In the new policy, the first bullet point you assert is the same.
Chris Grundemann: No, the first bullet point is new.
Mike Joseph: But you said it means the same thing.
Chris Grundemann: No, the – I think that the combination of the first two bullet points – right. So, again, the current policy says that the new entity must be acquiring assets that use the resources that are being transferred from the current registrant, and that language is maintained, although it’s in more detail, is all I’m saying.
We’re saying that the new entity must provide evidence that they have acquired assets that use the resources. That’s actually the exact same language, transferred from the current registrant, which we – source entity, because that’s the language that’s used in 8.3, and we’re trying to kind of align so you can read through these and understand what I’m talking about.
Mike Joseph: The key thing with 8.3, you have to understand that in 8.3 the source entity exists and can sign documents and enter into legal transactions.
Chris Grundemann: As long as they’re the registered holder of the assets, yes.
Mike Joseph: But in 8.2 the source entity no longer exists, in most cases. Because it’s typically been dissolved as a result of an M&A transaction.
Chris Grundemann: If you’re buying assets from a company and they don’t exist, it’s hard to do that, right?
Mike Joseph: No, no, no. If you’re buying a company, at the conclusion of the purchase of the company, the source company typically ceases to exist. So it can’t be a party to a specified transfer.
Chris Grundemann: Which is why you’re doing an M&A transfer, which comes with you’re buying assets from that company and it was the registered holder of the assets.
Mike Joseph: It may have been the registered holder of the assets, or it may have – it may have been the legitimate holder of assets that were registered to an antecedent to that company.
Tim Denton: If you’re having these difficulties of interpretation, and this obviously could go on for some time, until each person has gone to the remotest clarification of what is or isn’t in their mind, then, to my mind, this is not ready to be passed in its current form.
Mike Joseph: I would agree.
Tim Denton: So I think that is the point you’ve made.
Mike Joseph: Yes.
Tim Denton: Scott.
Scott Leibrand: Scott Leibrand, ARIN AC, work for Limelight.
I’d like to call some attention to the language in the second paragraph of 8.2, which is not up here, but it pertains. We actually worked on this language and tied it up a bit, like you said, to allow transfers, but some other things as well.
So it says that in the event that the number resources of the combined organizations are no longer justified under policy at the time ARIN becomes aware of the transaction through a transfer request or otherwise, ARIN will work to return aggregate transfer reclaim, et cetera, to restore compliance.
That was very carefully worded such that it’s not requiring that the sequencing be done exactly correctly with regard to whether you’d go to ARIN in the right time in the process or whatever.
But it also is intended that when ARIN becomes aware of it, language is intended so that you can’t just sit on a fait accompli until you’re ready to go to ARIN.
If ARIN finds out about it by any mechanism, by somebody reporting it or whatever, they’re supposed to go ahead and make sure the records are updated under 8.2 and addresses disposed of properly.
The reason I bring that up in this context is that I believe that language allows us to strike some of the language that Mike has a problem with and still be left with a policy that does provide some clarity and adds an additional two requirements that may be useful.
Tim Denton: That, to my mind, is suggesting that –
Scott Leibrand: We should continue to work on this. We should take it back as the AC to make some changes, which I’ve already marked up on my thing and I don’t need to read right now.
But I think what’s important to me as an AC member is to find out from the community if we address Mike’s concerns by striking some language that’s in this text, are you in support of making 8.2 look more like 8.3 in making it require an RSA and making a minimum of /24. Because those are the substantive changes.
Tim Denton: Just a second. So, from my point of view, if you could confer with Mike Joseph and perhaps come up with – we’re going to have two votes, obviously. One is approve or disapprove as read. I need the subsequent proposition.
Scott Leibrand: I don’t want to wordsmith this on the floor.
Tim Denton: That’s what I’m trying to say. Could you come up with a second proposition, please. Not now, not orally.
Scott Leibrand: I will go talk to Mike and see about a second proposition, yes.
Tim Denton: Thank you.
John Curran: I am John Curran, President and CEO of ARIN. I am from Boston, Massachusetts. When I don’t try hard, I start talking a lot faster, and I can actually talk so fast that the transcript people in the back of the room have no possible chance of catching up with me. And that is true of a lot of you as well.
John Curran: If you can talk slowly as well so that the transcription people have some chance of keeping up with us, it will make for a better record of the meeting. Thank you.
Tim Denton: Mr. Farmer.
David Farmer: David Farmer, University of Minnesota, ARIN AC. I think we’re getting a concept here that this isn’t ready. Does anyone see any urgency in this? If not, I think my recommendation is that the ARIN AC take this back and bring it to the next meeting with some good editing to it. I won’t say significant, necessarily, but definitely some changes to the meaning of the words that are here.
But I’m just trying to see if there’s any emergency in getting – trying to get this all figured out.
Tim Denton: This is what’s going to happen. We’re going to have – obviously the outcome of the first vote is pretty well determined. The question is: How are we to proceed beyond?
Mr. Ryan, you had a point?
So the secondary vote will be to continue working on the 8.2 language. Because it is a point about which the – our counsel has had the most substantial points to say, except perhaps for the TPIE discussion.
Vote takers, please.
Those in favor of the proposition as drafted, could you please raise your hands. Okay. A desert.
Those against the proposition as drafted, please raise your hands. Okay.
Do we need to count this vote, or can we just accept it?
John Curran: We like to count it.
Tim Denton: Count it? All right. It’s the heavy lifting from high-paid people. So these are the votes against the proposition as drafted. One hand only, please.
John Curran: If your elbow is bent, we don’t know whether you’re raising your hand. Nice and high.
Tim Denton: Mr. Stratton has completed his observations. A lonely person in favor of it and 51 against as drafted, 2012-8: Eligibility – Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 transfers.
Now, I’m not – contrary to what I said before, we’re going to have a vote on whether it is the will of the meeting that this proposition be referred back to the Advisory Council for further work. I won’t overspecify what that work will be.
So those in favor of having – referring the motion back to the Advisory Council for further work, would you please raise your hands.
Do we need to count this? Yes, we need to count it. Those against referring it back to the Advisory Council for further work, please raise your hands, in which case it would be simply dropped.
Okay. Thank you, Bob.
Are you still counting, Bob?
John Curran: It takes longer now because we do it in hex.
Tim Denton: Those in favor of referring it back to the Advisory Council for further work were 45 to 3. So there we go. Thank you very much.
Jason Schiller: As is traditional, could we get a room count, please? Excuse me. As is traditional, could we get a room count for those votes?
Tim Denton: The Room count was 142.
Jason Schiller: Thank you.
John Curran: Okay. So that concludes our first consideration of Draft Policies, and we’re now heading into our break.
I want to tell people that we’ll be at break from 3:30 to 4:00 PM. Break’s right out there, I believe. So if there’s any questions, please let me know, but otherwise I’ll see you back here in a half hour.
NRO Activities Report
John Curran: NRO Activities Report. And we’re going to have the speaker up, who is me. Look. Okay. So the next session we have some updates. We have the NRO Activities Report.
We have the NRO NC Report by Ron da Silva. We have the ARIN Board and Advisory Council Election Procedures and nominee speeches.
So I am not only the President and CEO of ARIN, but I am serving this year as the chair of the Number Resource Organization.
And the Number Resource Organization is the five RIRs working together; it’s our coordination body.
So it was formed through the NRO MOU in October of 2003. It’s very lightweight. It has no staff, no organization, no incorporation.
It has basically all volunteers from all the RIRs, a website and some funds that we all contribute toward.
Its purpose: protect the unallocated number resource pool, promote the bottom-up policy development process, act as a focal point for the Internet community input into the RIR system, and fulfill the role within ICANN of the Address Supporting Organization.
The Address Supporting Organization is called for in the ICANN bylaws. It’s the body that handles address, global address policy, and the NRO through an agreement with ICANN fulfills that function of the Address Supporting Organization.
It has an executive committee, which is composed of one appointed representative from each RIR plus RIR Board and staff observers.
There are three office holder positions which rotate annually. Decisions are made by unanimous agreement.
So when we agree we’re going to do something like we’re going to decide we’re going to participate in a meeting somewhere and we’re going to have a booth, we have to agree unanimously to coordinate and that we’re going to use NRO for that function.
If we don’t, we end up doing our own initiatives. It has a secretariat which rotates with the NRO secretariat position. So the staff of the RIR, whoever is secretary that year, his staff or their staff provides the NRO secretary as well.
It has coordination groups consisting of the Engineering Coordination Group, the Communications Coordination Group, the Public Affairs Coordination Group, and the Registration Service Managers.
The executive committee this year, Adiel from AFRINIC, is treasurer. Paul Wilson, secretary. Myself, chair. Raul is a member, as is Axel from RIPE.
We have the secretariat hosted by APNIC because Paul Wilson is the secretary.
The purpose of the ASO, as I said, within ICANN is to oversee the global number policy work. The ASO also appoints two directors to the ICANN Board. It also appoints representatives to serve on various ICANN bodies as needed like the NomCom. It advises the Board on number policy – on number policy matters.
We generally have most of these functions delegated to the ASO Address Council, which consists of 15 individuals, three per region. Here’s the list.
From this region: Louie Lee, Jason and Ron da Silva, who we heard earlier, because there’s an election going on.
We got to hear Louie Lee’s seat is up and we’ll be filling that shortly. ASO funding to ICANN. So we divide the expenses such as our $823,000 annual contribution to ICANN, plus marketing expenses, if we have a trade show somewhere, plus any common expenses we incur is divided based on revenue and total resources allocated. ARIN pays 18.17 percent under the current formula.
The formula is actually under evaluation, because it doesn’t consider IPv6, which seems a little bit unfair.
And it also doesn’t necessarily count for the fair distribution going forward.
It’s been skewed heavily as IPv4 runout has occurred. So we’re looking at that formula. We may end up with a different distribution.
It’s not a huge number in ARIN’s overall expenses.
ASO review: We recently had a review of the ASO as required by the ICANN bylaws. Items International, which is a paraspace consultancy, came in and looked at the requirements that the ASO had to fill within the ICANN structure and how our ASO was performing.
And that included doing a survey, a global survey, and then individual interviews of dozens of people and came up with a report. It’s online. You can see it there.
It talks about – it has some suggestions, some 20 some odd suggestions, on improving the ASO functionality within ICANN. These include such things as terminology. We have the NRO and we have the ASO. We have the NRO Number Council which serves as the ASO Address Supporting Organization.
Can’t we just get one set of names? Do we really need all of these? It also includes some things about how we communicate with ICANN bodies. ICANN bodies are used for a very interesting structure because of the supporting organization and constituency model used over there.
And so we’ve responded to that report. Our response is also online. We’ll be working through implementing those. Those don’t really have a major effect. If the terminology changes, I’ll come to you and let you know what they are.
But it should help make things smoother. New global policy: We actually had a new global policy go through the RIR system. Global policy IPv4 2011 for proposal for post-exhaustion IPv4 allocation mechanisms. Describes how IANA will reallocate returned IPv4 resources. This same policy was adopted in all the regions and sent to the ICANN Board.
The ICANN Board ratified it in May, and as a result we’ve had resources returned by RIPE, ARIN and APNIC, I believe. Yes.
So we’ve actually had three RIRs return resources to the pool. In the ARIN region, as resources are returned to us, it’s been our practice to return them to ICANN. We continue that practice until policy dictates otherwise.
Internet Governance Forum: The Internet Governance Forum is the multi-stakeholder non-governmental – governments are allowed, but it’s not based on government treaty organization. The multi-stakeholder group which discusses Internet governance issues globally. It’s a nondecisional body. So we discuss issues, but we don’t come up with hard recommendations.
It has an advisory group that helps build the agenda. We have several members from the NRO on that advisory group. And the upcoming meeting is in Baku, Azerbaijan. And we’ll have quite a few people from the NRO, both RIR staff and ARIN’s Board there.
We’ve actually upped our contribution to IGF. Collectively, the NRO contributes $75,000 a year. The reason we did that is because it’s important to have a body where organizations can contribute and come and talk about these policies and talk about issues that affect the Internet in a nondecisional way.
If we don’t have something like the IGF, we will end up with something else and it may be something where the only people who get to make a decision are governments.
So to make sure the IGF is alive and well, we contribute to the secretariat. And there’s a number of workshops at the upcoming IGF including an IPv6 workshop and an RPKI workshop.
Under the UN, CSTD has a working group on IGF improvements that we participated in and it’s produced its final report.
There was some discussion after the first five years of IGF operation about making it into a decisional body. And the working group on IGF improvements came to a different conclusion, decided to keep it as is, is what makes sense. A lot of discussion about how to build the agendas and how to build the sessions for IGF. It was a good group.
NRO is involved in the OECD. We’re a founding member of the Internet Technical Advisory Committee on the OECD and participate in some of their working groups, including the communications infrastructure and service policy group.
We’re busy ramping up. Everyone is talking about WCIT, but we’re also ramping up for the World Telecommunications Policy Forum, which will be taking place next year in May, and this is a body that’s chartered to discuss telecommunications policy.
We’re busy working on being involved in the agenda setting of that meeting and in working with the ITU to make sure they understand it’s important that that be as open as possible a structure. The ITU said they will work on that to the extent that they can do so with their charter.
They have some charter issues, acquired governments to be involved in making decisions.
IPv6 outreach: We’ve worked with – we’re doing a lot of IPv6 outreach. But the NRO, in particular, using our coordinated action, has reached out to the IT secretariat general to want to work with them on capacity building or IPv6 outreach and education.
This is something that came out of discussions with the ITU last year when they were doing their IPv6 study group.
We also commented on the IANA functions contract to ICANN. We noted positively that the ICANN has been reawarded the IANA functions contract and that’s a good thing.
You can find all this correspondence on the website. This year we have established a Public Affairs Coordination Group. It was done informally but now we have a separate group from the communications coordination group, simply for public affairs.
It makes sense given all the internationalization, Internet governance discussions. We coordinate with some of the other iStar groups like the IAB, the IETF, the ICANN, ISOC and so that happens through the NRO.
We just completed the global IPv6 deployment monitoring survey, which is a joint function. Showed a significant uptake in deployment of IPv6.
We do joint RPKI project planning through the Engineering Coordinating Group this year and we’re continuing to look at legacy IPv4 space and just discussing among the RIRs through this forum.
That actually concludes the report of the NRO. I’ll take any questions. Thank you very much. I’m going to ask Ron da Silva to come up and give the NRO Number Council Report.
NRO Number Council Report
Ron da Silva: Thank you, John. I’m Ron da Silva. And I’m one of three representatives here for ARIN on the ASO AC, and I have the distinct privilege of providing a very brief update on some of the activities of the ASO.
The activities tend to be focused around the first two items. I’ll talk a little bit about the other two bullet points. And those are coordinating amongst all the other RIRs policies that are being put forth as global policies. And conveniently today we really don’t have a lot of activities in this space, so not much to report.
Another major role of the ASO is to appoint Seat nine and ten for the ICANN Board. And we had just wrapped up Seat nine earlier this year and just commenced the process of selecting, identifying and recommending a candidate for Seat ten.
So there’s reasonable amount of activity there with the ASO and interviewing and validating eligibility and putting together a recommendation over the next several months.
So absent those major activities, the rest of what the ASO does is basically as duties assigned from the Executive Committee.
And some of the things that we are currently focusing on are primarily wrapped around streamlining operations. The ASO is comprised of, as John said, representatives all over the globe from all the different RIRs. And to participate together in a regular fashion, we rotate the secretariat function each year.
What’s that really mean? What that really means is this is not necessarily a glamorous role or a service that your three ASO representatives provide, in that invariably one year is going to be very inconveniently scheduled in the middle of the night, as it is right now.
So for some of us right now we have a 3:00 a.m. once-a-month two or more hour-long ASO calls.
So there are challenges with having, first of all, that time of the day for us. Obviously it’s convenient for other folks across the globe, but for this region and also for the Latin America region it tends to be a challenge to get up and have everybody present and to transact business. So there are things we’re doing to streamline our operating procedures.
Namely, to make as much electronic capabilities as we can to encourage participation via email or other methods so that we don’t necessarily all have to be on the phone call at the same time and try to work around some of the challenges with the time zone.
So that’s been a pretty significant focus of the group for the last several months.
And then a fourth focus of the ASO has been around outreach. We take turns participating at the ICANN meetings and hosting informative sessions with the rest of the folks at ICANN. And that in itself is an interesting challenge, because the majority of the folks that participate at ICANN tend to be – I’m sorry, John, I’m speaking too fast.
The majority of the folks tend to be more interested in names and less interested in numbers. So that’s always a fun activity. So talk about the ASO: global policies, Board selections, those are our primary duties. Presently there’s some other things that we’re doing. That’s it.
Louie Lee: John, if I may. I want to alert the community about the most recent global policy proposal. This was ratified earlier this year, and there is currently a consultation being run by IANA. And Leo is probably around to actually speak more on it, but I can read that real quick.
The policy requires ICANN to make appropriate modifications to the Internet protocol IPv4 address space on the page of the IANA website.
Consultation is to gather input on the most appropriate way to make these changes for different users of the IANA IPv4 address registries. Please speak with Leo to get more detail on that. If you want to look at the Web page just go to icann.org and look for the October announcements.
John Curran: Thank you, Louie. For context, when we sent the global policy to ICANN, and it’s been ratified by ICANN, there’s multiple ways it could be implemented on how returned address space is reflected in the registry.
Does it happen in-line in the current registry, does it happen as a distinct registry? How does it end up being depicted?
And so the group within ICANN that is chartered with doing that, the IANA functions team, wrote up a paper that describes the various options and has a consultation open presently for public comment about the trade-off of how returned space is reflected in the registry.
So if you make use of data in the registry and you may have another registry or you may have more complicated procedures to access the information about what address blocks are at the IANA depending on how this is implemented. You’re encouraged to go look at the consultation and comment if you think it’s important.
Okay. At the back, yes, Sandra.
Sandy Murphy: Sandy Murphy, SPARTA. I feel a little bit like I’m piling on because I asked a similar question at a different RIR meeting quite recently but perhaps this audience might also be interested in the answer.
The NRO last year opened a dialogue with ICANN, requested the discussion about operation of the global trust anchor of the RPKI, and we are now in the happy position that all five RIRs are in production.
So I wondered if you could answer for this audience the progress of those discussions.
John Curran: Sure. At this time the Engineering Coordinating Group of the NRO, which is the engineering team leaders of the five RIRs, are working on, with ICANN, are working on a document that specifies how that global trust anchor would be actually realized. Until they have a common vision and common document that has the specs for that, there’s not much else to say.
Some of that may require actually reflecting IETF standards but until they actually write the document and get it done for spec for global trust anchor we don’t know what will end up also going to the SIDR working group. But it’s in progress. Thank you.
Leo Vegoda: Leo Vegoda, ICANN. Just talking about the public comment period we’ve got going for the implementation of the global policy.
I just want to make it explicitly clear that although we have laid out a few options, if you come up with a better option that isn’t in the paper that I wrote, then feel free to put it forward and I won’t feel bad about it at all.
We just want to do it the best way possible, and you shouldn’t feel that we’re restricting the choice of the implementation options.
If everything I wrote is rubbish, then please say so and come up with a better idea and we’ll implement your better idea.
John Curran: Thank you, Leo, for noting that. And just to say personally, upon reading it, I found your elucidation of some choices in addition to, of course, anything we come up with, but the inclusion of some possible implementation options as very useful. Thank you for going through that effort.
Okay. Other questions on the NRO Activities Report? Or the NRO NC Report?
ARIN Board and Advisory Council Election Procedures
John Curran: Okay. So at this time we’re going to go into the ARIN Board and Advisory Council Election Process. This starts out with a review of the election procedures. I’m going to ask Jud, who is the master of such things, to come up, and then we’ll hear from the Advisory Council nominees and the Board of Trustees nominees.
Jud Lewis: Thank you, John. You’ll be having déjà vu. It’s me again and this time talking about the Board and Advisory Council procedures.
This right here, if you go to our website www.arin.net/app/selection, you’ll see this little guy, this horse, the election tracker. Kind of a fun way to visualize where we are in the process.
Right now, as of really just a few minutes ago, the Board and Advisory Council elections opened.
Kind of reminds me of the guy from Cliff Hanger on the Price is Right, he’s moving along.
Unfortunately, there’s not going to be any Showcase Showdown at the end of the elections, but we want to make it fun and an easy way to visualize where we’re at in the process.
So here we go. calendar of October and November. And here is today. We’re going to have a very impressive slate of candidates come up and give speeches. Voting just opened at 5:00 PM Eastern Time. Tomorrow the speeches you’re about to watch will be available for your viewing pleasure online. And on Saturday,in ten days, voting closes at 5:00 PM Eastern Time. You have ten days to cast your vote.
And we will announce the representatives sometime the following week before the tenth.
Okay. So who can vote? That would be eligible Designated Member Representatives, or DMRs, as of the tenth of October.
They’re on record with us at that time. So what makes a DMR eligible? They need to meet these three requirements.
First they need to be on record as of the 25th of August. They need to have their email, have to have the name and initials and their organizations’s domain name. Like mailto:email@example.com . And you have to be in good standing, not owe, have any overdue invoices.
Okay. As I showed you before, this is ARIN Election Headquarters. And there’s the URL. Here you can read statements of support and cast them yourself for candidates. Research them. And this is where you go to cast your vote.
It’s also important to note that this year we have something new, a little more easily digestible candidate information is available in PDF form.
And if you look at the, one easy way to get there if you’re at arin.net, the Web announcement we just made in the bottom left has a link to this PDF.
So Jud, how do I vote? Well, here’s how. You go to the URL I just mentioned and you click on voting for either the Board or the Advisory Council election.
And you’re going to have one or two choices. If you’ve done this before, then you’re going to log in. If you’ve never voted before, then you’re going to need to fill out a short registration form, take you like one minute.
And then after you do so, you’ll be at the voting booth and you click one of the elections. And then you’re going to see this sample ballot. Now, for the Board of Trustees you’re going to be able to select up to two candidates. For the Advisory Council you’ll be able to select up to six candidates.
And they’re all listed alphabetically. And when you’re done, you click Submit. Then you’re going to see this screen. Make sure you click Confirm Vote. It’s not until you click that your vote is sort of sealed and officially cast. So just remember you have to click confirm vote. Success. You’ll see this screen. You’ve successfully cast your vote.
Then you’re going to return to the voting booth. Let’s say that was just like the Advisory Council election. You’re going to return there and then also vote in the Board of Trustees election. After you do that and you successfully vote in both elections, you’re going to see this screen.
If you see that, vote cast, then you’ve successfully voted in the elections.
I want to point out this red error text, a few people came up to me at the election help desk asking about that. It’s a bit misleading. You see that when you’re logged in on this page and there are no open elections.
In this case, you’re going to see that because you’ve already voted in them. And you can see so by where that big blue arrow is pointing.
Okay. There’s the cowboy again here to remind you that you have ten days to vote. Saturday the 3rd of November, 5:00 PM Eastern Time.
If you have any issues logging in, write to me at firstname.lastname@example.org or come see me outside. I’ll be at the voting help desk out there for the rest of the time.
And now I’m going to turn things over to John – well, are there any questions about how to vote? If you have any – like I said, I’m right out there. I’ll turn things over to John, who is going to introduce you to our slate of candidates.
John Curran: Okay. Candidates for the Advisory Council. The first candidate for the Advisory Council is Jesse Geddis. He cannot be here, so I will read his slide, once I move close enough to actually see it.
What differentiates you as a candidate or makes you uniquely suited to serve on the Advisory Council?
“About 75 percent of the AC is made up of a couple of carriers. I think it’s important to make the AC representative of the community at large. Two years ago I started my company alone choosing to base it natively on IPv6. I don’t seek this role to further my own business interests as my needs are already set.
“I seek this role to help others gain access to the resources necessary to start their own businesses, to grow their current ones, to evangelize IPv6, and to help ARIN find ways to facilitate such.
“Bio: When I was 17, I designed the first DOCSIS cable modem network for Charter across New England before DOCSIS was even a standard. Since then I’ve worked as an architect for companies such as WorldCom, Sony, Technicolor, DreamWorks, Symantec, Helio, and Westfield, before starting my own company, LA Broadband. I’m intimately familiar with both the technical and business side of telecom, having been personally responsible for budgets in excess of $30 million at companies large and small, carrier and enterprise.
John Curran: I’m going next to ask up Frank Hoonhout. Come on up, Frank, to speak about his serving on the AC.
Frank Hoonhout: I’m Frank Hoonhout, running for the ARIN AC committee. I was a Fellowship person last year. I know I don’t have a lot of experience, but I do have a lot of networking experience and also support the ARIN bottom-up model.
So from my experience, I’ve been using ARIN’s policy to help my customers in the process of using the IP addresses that we’ve been allocated in our organizations.
I also have been – a little nervous here – I’ve also been working with my constituents on the policies and procedures for the ARIN model that they use to procure services in our environment.
I also would like to thank you for your time and cooperation, and I hope to get your vote. So please do vote. Thank you.
John Curran: Next candidate up for the ARIN Advisory Council, I’d like to ask Stacy Hughes to come up.
Stacy Hughes: Frank, you don’t know what nervous is. Hello. My name is Stacy Hughes. I’ve served on the Advisory Council for the last ten years. I care about the community. I wish to continue doing this work. And my dad is making me do it. I ask for your vote.
John Curran: Okay. Next up, George Morton. He’s not present here, so I’m going to read his slide. What he wants to bring to the AC:
“ARIN services the ISP market well. ARIN does not service the end-user market well. There needs to be new initiatives that encourage IPv6 services in the enterprise and government space.
For example, Domain Name Providers should have an opportunity to offer IPv6 as a DNS service, get a domain, get some v6. Work with PCI and others about IPv6 security issues. The fellow government has missed every IPv6 deadline. The last one was 9-30-12. There are concerns that have not been addressed. You can find more about George online at the questionnaire below. And he says I would appreciate your vote.”
Next up is Milton Mueller. Milton can’t be here. Milton provides us a video speech. So with the magic of digital technology, I expect to hear the voice of Milton in a moment. It’s worth waiting. Good to have him. I’d rather not channel Milton.
Milton Mueller (via video): I’m a professor at a university. That’s where I’m right now. I’m sorry I couldn’t be with you in Dallas. It’s probably a lot warmer there.
I’ve been nominated for the Advisory Committee. Perhaps because I’ve been active on PPML and my ideas and research and policy analyses about addressing seem to have some impact and to stake out a pretty clear position on a number of policy issues. I have no illusions about what it means to be on the Advisory Council.
I am not planning to make a career out of being an ARIN politician. I’m fully aware of the fact that being on the AC means that you’re one or of six or seven people all of whom have their own opinions and you have to achieve some kind of consensus to get anything done.
But I think I was nominated for this, and, by the way, it was not me who nominated myself for this. It was some other people. And I figured there are people who want me on the Advisory Council to represent a certain position. And while you may not want that position to be shared by everybody on the Advisory Council, I think it would be hard to argue that somebody with my positions should not be on the Advisory Council at all; that ARIN needs to have perspectives that are challenging and that represent an economic and political point of view that goes beyond the normal narrow range of opinions that you typically see in the ARIN leadership.
I understand that these kinds of working groups, having been in ICANN and been involved in that environment for a long time, I know that this is a lot of work. You don’t get any real thanks for it or much in the way of rewards.
So it’s really what I’m interested in is the policy issue. I really think ARIN is facing some absolutely fascinating policy issues. I’ve devoted a lot of my life to understanding and promoting better policies in that area.
And so I think I have something to contribute. That’s it. Thank you. My name is Milton Mueller, and I approve this message.
John Curran: Okay. Next up is Brandon Ross.
Brandon Ross: Thanks. Hi. Everybody, as you know, my name is Brandon Ross. I am the founder of Network Utility Force, just recently in the past year.
But I’ve been part of this community for a long time. Many of you have probably seen me around ARIN meetings and NANOG meetings.
I started my career way back at MindSpring. And MindSpring taught me a lot of things. Most people who know me, know I’m very opinionated, that I have especially when it comes to policy issues.
But MindSpring taught me many things, and one of those things is how to take different aspects of your personal opinions into account as well as those of the community.
And that’s what I’d really like to bring to the AC is a broad perspective of what both service providers in enterprise need out of ARIN and need out of number policy.
My current company, like I said, we just started about a year ago, provides professional services for a variety of companies. And I want to use that experience with these varieties of companies to bring back the Advisory Council and help develop good policy that people need.
I believe that the mid-sized to small operators, especially, have strong needs of the AC that are especially underrepresented today.
And I believe because I do so much work with those guys that I can help represent them.
On top of that, I have a lot of international contact as well. Much of it is outside of North America. So maybe not directly related to ARIN policy, but the kinds of things that are happening in the rest of the world I think affect ARIN quite a bit.
So what will I do, what are my focuses going to be? Well, of course balancing the community’s needs against what I personally feel about policy is number one.
But I was talking just earlier at lunch about many of the v4 policies I believe are forcing a lot of transactions in the v4 marketplace underground or at least into the dark. And I’d like to see us move towards a policy structure where companies aren’t necessarily required to share all that information, but at least they feel free that they can.
And, secondly, I think what’s also important and play even more important than that is helping smaller service providers deploy IPv6, making it easier for them to do so, making the information for them available, and I believe there are things ARIN can do more so today to make that happen. I won’t take up more of your time. Again Brandon Ross. Vote for me.
John Curran: Next ARIN AC candidate up, Bill Sandiford.
Bill Sandiford: Good afternoon, everybody. My name is Bill Sandiford. For those that don’t know me, I’m the president of a small ISP and CLEC that operates in the Greater Toronto area of Canada. And I’ve been doing that for six years. I’ve been a member of the Advisory Council for the past three years and have been proud of the work I’ve done with all my other fine colleagues there, and I’m hoping to continue to do that for the years to come.
I’m acutely aware that by this point in the afternoon everybody’s eager to get on to things, so I’m going to keep my speech a little bit short.
I have some very vast experience with group governance. I’m a member of the Canadian Internet Registrations Authority Board. I’m a former board of the Toronto Internet Exchange, which is the largest exchange point in Canada. And a bunch of other organizations. I’m also president of the Canadian Network Operators Consortium, which is a group that represents the interests of approximately 26 of some of the more medium-sized competitors in our country.
I changed my slide around quite a bit because I find I can never even read my own slide from the stage. I took all the bio info off. If you want to talk about my past, I’m around all week, of course, or you can feel free to reach out to me with Twitter or email. I look forward to speaking with you, and I ask for your vote, thank you.
John Curran: Next candidate for the ARIN Advisory Council is Heather Schiller.
Heather Schiller: Next to Stacy, I’m the most jittery AC member that hates public speaking. So thank you for six years on the Advisory Council. I guess I can’t say I’m the new kid on the AC anymore.
Does it say up there that I’ve been a security engineer at Verizon for about 12 years? In the middle of all that, I took over managing a bunch of address space, and I did that for all the unit address space for a number of years. I learned a lot about addressing, a lot about what problems customers of various types face in not just acquiring address space but deploying it, designing their networks, that type of thing, doing a lot of address, the v6 address planning and all that.
And I gave up the address management to focus on security. But I stuck around the ARIN part. I stayed on the Advisory Council. I think I liked the arguing with you all maybe a little too much, even though my opinion isn’t always popular.
Occasionally it happens seemingly more and more, but I have the dissenting opinion. But I think it’s good to have that. It’s good to not just try to go along with the rest of the group, in that if you kind of really believe in a certain policy or that some things should be a certain way, kind of getting up there and arguing for it and trying to help other folks see your side, but also at the same time listening and trying to hear what other members of the community and the Advisory Council are trying to say and what they, how they see a policy or how they see a process as well.
So I try to do that as an AC member. Hopefully I do it well enough. And I think what ARIN does is important. Occasionally folks say that as v4 space runs out we move to v6 maybe ARIN’s role isn’t as important anymore. And I don’t think that. I think that there’s a lot that ARIN does not just in terms of managing address space but in the larger community as well. And I think that’s an important role that ARIN should consider. Thanks.
John Curran: Next candidate for the Advisory Council is Rob Seastrom. Rob cannot be here due to unforeseen circumstances at the last minute.
Chairman John Sweeting will speak.
John Sweeting: Rob is over in Baylor University Hospital recovering from having his gallbladder taken out yesterday morning. Luckily his lovely wife is here in Dallas with him. So she’s been able to take care of all that for him.
Rob sent me this statement from him to read to you this afternoon. So I won’t waste any more time.
So: “Good afternoon. Greetings from Baylor University Medical Center. John Sweeting has kindly offered to read my statement. I hopefully will be back to the conference as soon as the doctors say I am able:
“My name is Rob Seastrom. Some of you know as R.S. I’m standing for re-election to the ARIN Advisory Council.
“I do IP network architecture at Time Warner Cable, which is a large MSO. I’ve been involved in our industry for over two decades. I’ve worked for large ISPs, small ISPs, a large CVN and anycast DNS operator.
“This makes me sensitive to the needs of large, small and nontraditional user of Number Resources and the need for policies that accommodate the needs of all stakeholders in an equitable way.
“We are living in interesting times. IPv4 free pool runout, the emerging transfer market and the rise of IPv6 raise many difficulties both technical and political.
“But as we address those difficulties, there’s an opportunity for the ARIN communities bottom-up policy process to really shine.
I’d like to thank my colleagues on the AC and on the Board of Trustees for countless hours of work to enact good policy, but most of all I want to thank you, the community, for bringing policy proposals forward whenever you see the need.
I ask you to vote for me as a candidate for the ARIN Advisory Council. Thank you.”
John Curran: And our last candidate for the ARIN AC, John Springer.
John Springer: Good afternoon, I’m John Springer. It’s an honor just to be nominated.
One of the things that has been a very great privilege for me is to get to know a lot of the Advisory Council members over the last few years.
My overwhelming emotion, the impression I get from them is an admiration for the amount of work. This time slot’s kind of about asking for your vote. So please vote for me. If you do, I’m interested in the work. And if you elect me, I’ll do it. Thank you.
John Curran: That concludes the ARIN Advisory Council candidates for this election. We’ll now go on to talk about the ARIN Board of Trustees. Candidates for the ARIN Board of Trustees we have two positions open. We have seven candidates. So first up, Paul Andersen.
Paul Andersen: Thank you very much. Before we get into the ARIN Board elections, I just wanted to personally thank someone who sadly won’t be making a candidate speech today, Scott Bradner, who sat on the Board since ARIN was created and unfortunately has decided not to run this year.
Apparently it’s true that all great things must come to an end, and Scott has done exceptional work serving the ARIN Board and our larger community, and it’s been an honor to serve him. And I wanted to take a second to thank him. So thank you, Scott.
On with the election. I’ve been in the service provider industry for over 20 years. I have also been very active in the Internet governance for my entire career. I founded EGate Networks, an Internet hosting and connectivity provider throughout Canada, in ‘96. I’ve been on the Board of Directors of CIRA, the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, the registry for the .ca domain name since 2001. And I’m also currently the chair of that board.
I’ve been an elected member of the Board of the Toronto Internet Exchange, the largest open peering Internet exchange in Canada, where I also served as President and Chairman.
And since 2003 I’ve been deeply involved in ARIN. I served first as a member of the ARIN Advisory Council and now serve as a member of the ARIN Board. I’m currently the Board’s Treasurer, and while perhaps not much fun for a technology guy, it’s critical, I think, for you to know that your money is being carefully looked after.
We’re all aware of the challenges and migrating to IPv6 and dealing with the imminent depletion of IPv4.
ARIN is facing several critical challenges as it copes with this different world, and I welcome the opportunity to continue this important work for you.
ARIN could potentially be taking on new roles in the future. The revenue stream is likely to be affected and the way the organization engages with the various communities and stakeholders will likely need to be evolved.
ARIN needs to ensure that we continue to provide its users with access to the services they want and the way they want them and doing them in a timely and efficient manner.
As an example, we’ve set up a regime to permit resource transfers while ensuring still community policy’s upheld. It’s the Board’s job to ensure that this is working for our users in our community.
So quickly what do I bring to the ARIN Board of Trustees? Experience, which I spoke of before, knowledge, I bring an unparalleled depth of knowledge and a variety of areas from engineering to finance, international political Internet environment.
And finally I have a passion and commitment to the values that ARIN stands for as part of the bottom-up consensus-based policy process.
I therefore ask for your vote and support for new term on service of the Board. I would be grateful if you give me the confidence again. I’ll be a good listener and work hard and I think my track record demonstrates that. Feel free to grab me in the hall or drop me a line. My email address is on the bottom of the slide, email@example.com. I’ll be available if you have something you want to convey. I appreciate your vote, and thank you for your time.
John Curran: Next ARIN Board of Trustees candidate, Ron da Silva.
Ron da Silva: Again, I’m Ron da Silva. You heard me speaking as your ASO representative, and now I rise as a candidate for the Board of Trustees.
Paul took a little bit of my thunder, I wanted to point out the service from Scott; and, frankly, I wouldn’t be here today if he was still on the slate. My only interest rising for the opportunity was when approached several months ago to consider it, I realized at that point that Scott wasn’t going to be looking for an appointment on the Board again. So thus my interest.
And my interest really aligns with my experience supporting the ARIN community over the last ten years.
And it started kind of like this ten years ago. I rose from a very, how should I say, ignorant position of what in the world is an RIR and what do they do.
I came to a meeting just like this seeking a position on the Advisory Council, and my reasoning was as following: I spent a considerable amount of time in the IETF and NANOG speaking at various related technologies that are impacted by policies and decisions made here. And I really had no clue how are policies established, who are the players, what actually takes place in driving administration. So I stood here asking for your vote then, and that was the beginning of six years on the Advisory Council, two of which as vice chairman and four of which as chairman of the AC.
Subsequent to that I have a couple of years ago was asked by the Board to consider the ASO position. There are three, as John mentioned earlier, positions representing you on the ASO, two of which are elected and one of which is appointed by the Board.
So I feel I’ve seen a lot of different aspects and have established a fairly good working knowledge of how the whole policy process takes place and what it takes to administer that, both as an executive and also as a technologist.
I’m currently Vice President of Network Engineering Architecture and Technology at Time Warner. I have a variety of experience in executive management and know what it takes to run a meeting and to support an organization, have served on other boards, and would really look for an opportunity to continue serving the ARIN community in this regard, and would appreciate your vote of confidence. Thanks.
John Curran: Next candidate for the ARIN Board of Trustees is William Herrin and he has a video speech.
William Herrin (via video): Hi. I’m William Herrin. And I’d like to talk to you about IPv6. At ARIN, we’re doing less than we can to facilitate a wide deployment of IPv6.
The allocation policies are pretty decent. And you have a lot of folks in this room to thank for that. Yet, one broken policy remains. ARIN monetized IPv6 registration too soon.
Folks, it’s a down economy. You may have staff you’re trying to hold onto, but there’s no spare cash. Can a thousand dollar purchase order wait until tomorrow? It can’t and it does. Meanwhile, those of you who have already deployed IPv6 are stuck holding the bag.
Your cost to maintain and continue deploying IPv6 easily exceeds any sums ARIN would recover, and it won’t help you until the rest of the world follows.
Monetized too soon. If elected, I’ll seek to stop monetizing IPv6 registration. I’ll endeavor to defer monetization until IPv6 is the major protocol on the public Internet. Free IPv6. Reasonable? If so, I’d like your vote. I’m William Herrin and I seek the privilege of serving you on the Board of Trustees. I thank you for your kind consideration.
John Curran: Next candidate for the ARIN Board of Trustees, Aaron Hughes.
Aaron Hughes: Aaron Hughes. I’m President and CEO of 6connect. I think you can all read. I won’t give you the history of my bio. I thought I’d share my personal history with me and my relationship with ARIN.
Eight years ago I went to my first ARIN meeting, it was a joint NANOG session. I walked into the back of the room in Reston, and I met this crazy woman in the back with a tag on her badge that said ARIN AC.
I had no idea at the time, but I was about to enter into two very long relationships.
One became my wife. And the other was with the ARIN community. It really changed my passion and it changed my drive.
Since then I’ve been on planes, a lot of planes. I travel around the world to operator meetings, policy meetings, and I’ve identified a gap across pretty much all of them, which is this distance between policy and operational practice.
And from the beginning I made it my mission, my personal mission to help bridge that gap, working in both the operator community and the policy community.
Most of you know some of the things I’ve done. And I hope that it’s affected you in some positive way. We had a recent really nice achievement of taking best current operational practices organization to the state of global, which is fantastic for the community.
So I stand before you as a dedicated member of the ARIN community and member of the Internet community as a whole telling you I’m here to offer more of my time and more of my assistance wherever I can as a Board of Trustees seat on the ARIN, in the ARIN organization, excuse me. And I ask for your vote.
I would suggest please do read everybody’s bios and make good decisions about who you feel would make good long-term decisions of the future viability of the entity, and I will always take into careful consideration anything put before me.
I think I have well-rounded good decisions and I hope you all have had some kind of personal interaction with me that would back that up. Again, I thank you for your time and I would really appreciate your vote.
John Curran: Next candidate for the ARIN Board of Trustees, Martin Levy.
Martin Levy: Thank you. For those people that don’t know me, I’m Martin Levy from Hurricane Electric, and I’ve spent quite a bit of time of my life dedicated to v6.
For those people that do know me, they already know that. Everybody else up here has been talking about what you need to do and to review the candidates and vote for them.
I’m actually going to do the opposite, because I’m actually going to say don’t vote for me. I got myself a little busy after I got nominated. And I’ve got another cause that is going to keep me busy, and hopefully the rest of you will follow.
I’m on the US WCIT delegation, will be off in Dubai and hopefully following up on all the stuff next year as well.
So I’m throwing my support against Paul and Aaron, and I can’t stop you voting for me.
But get the message. And I’ll be back – I’m sorry, I didn’t actually mean to quote the actor, but I thank you very much anyway for the support that you’ve given to the v6 community, because as you know that really is my number one passion. Thank you.
John Curran: Next candidate up for the ARIN Board of Trustees is Dave Siegel.
Dave Siegel: Hi. Thanks. Well, there’s – I haven’t really been doing a lot of Internet governance the last ten years, and I mean this room is full of such dedicated individuals. I wouldn’t even claim to have ever done as much Internet governance as a lot of you guys.
What I haven’t done is probably not nearly important as what I have done recently. For the past five years I’ve been focusing primarily on product management, P&L strategy, finance and marketing, which I know is a dirty word to a lot of people.
And that’s in addition to years of experience in IP engineering and operations background. Like a lot of folks, I have about 20 years of experience. Started an ISP. Have been a business owner. I have that background and am also currently Senior Director for Product Management for Internet Services at Level 3 Communications, a fairly large carrier.
So why did I run? John current put the message out on NANOG saying he was looking for candidates. And it sounded like he needed a few more.
And, frankly, the candidates that are running seems to be more than enough qualified candidates. So I would almost consider withdrawing my nomination as well, but consider this: If you value diversity on the Board, if you believe that having a board member with some specific experience and business strategy finance and marketing can help further the IPv6 cause, if you believe that having representation from a large carrier, if you think that those things would add diversity to the Board, then I encourage you to vote for me. Thanks.
John Curran: And the final candidate for the ARIN Board of Trustees, Josh Snowhorn.
Josh Snowhorn: Hello. I’m Josh Snowhorn. I work at CyrusOne. I wanted to come up and tell you to vote for Martin Levy to punish him a little bit. I don’t know if he would appreciate that. Good friend of mine for a long time. Just like Dave, I ran because John posted a message looked like he needed people. By the time I did that there was a giant slate of candidates, and I thought, wow, I’m competing against some really heavy hitters on the Internet and people I’ve known for a long time.
My history is well known to a lot of people and not a lot in here.
I was one of the original employees of terremark, which is now a Verizon company hosting this meeting. And I’ve hosted four different NANOGs in that role and was co-founder of GPF with Equinix and a lot of other folks and had a lot of success that way.
I actually thought about withdrawing as well, but I committed to run for this. So I’m going to. If you want to vote for me, that’s great. But I would like to also endorse – I think Aaron Hughes, who is one of my good friends for many years, so please vote for him, and also Ron da Silva. So if you don’t vote for me, those two guys would be great. I love everybody else as well. Good folks. But go for that. Thanks a lot.
John Curran: That concludes our presentation of the ARIN Advisory Council candidates and the ARIN Board of Trustees candidates.
As someone noted earlier, one of the people who might be a candidate is not running again. One of our own currently on the Board of Trustees, Mr. Scott Bradner, has served ARIN since its inception.
Actually Scott has served ARIN before its inception, having been instrumental in helping in the formation of ARIN and making it a success.
Scott was one of the people who recruited me to come on board as it was being formed. And both he and I have served on the Board since day one.
So I’d like to take a moment to recognize the fact that with the expiration of his term and his decision not to run again that ARIN will be losing an instrumental member of the Board of Trustees, true founder of the organization and one whose vast knowledge and experience has gotten us to where it is today.
So I’d like a round of applause for Scott. Thank you.
Scott, if you would come up here a moment and say a few words, you could.
Scott Bradner: I was not expecting to be asked to say a few words. But this has been a valuable thing to do.
ARIN is a very valuable piece of the Internet ecosystem. It’s proof as with the other RIRs that the bottoms-up model can work, that the multi-stakeholder environment can be successful.
We’re at a time which you heard earlier today where that model is under threat, not just ARIN, but the whole Internet community is under threat.
And I think that this – the image of ARIN as to what it has done and what it’s continuing to do is vital to hold up as a model against those that would move us to the traditional telephone regulatory model.
So I’ve had an interesting time. Much of it very good. Some of it very challenging in my years at ARIN.
And I will miss some of it. I won’t miss all of the travel. I won’t miss freezing cold conference rooms. But I will certainly miss you and the support that you’ve given me all these years.
And I’ll look in from time to time. Thank you.
John Curran: On behalf of the entire ARIN community, the Board of Trustees, the Advisory Council, the members at large and the community, for all of your efforts over the year, we’d like to present you this memento.
Scott Bradner: Heavy.
John Curran: Yes.
Scott Bradner: Thank you very much.
John Curran: Thank you.
Closing Announcements And Adjournment
John Curran: That concludes today’s program. I’d like to now talk about some logistics. We have a – first thing you should know the election just opened, 5:00 PM today. That means now. The election is open. If you’re the Designated Member Representative of an organization, you may vote.
If you have any questions please go out to the election help desk or find Jud in the room. But our elections are open and we need everyone to vote.
Very important. I’d like to thank our sponsor providing the connectivity for the meeting, terremark.
Tonight we have a social at Gilley’s in Dallas, wonderful venue, fun things to do. The buses will leave at 6:30 from the Olive Street entrance in the lobby.
Last bus leaves at 6:50. Look forward to seeing you all there. Bring your name badge. It’s important for getting in. Looking forward to seeing you all tonight or tomorrow morning when we start. Thank you.