Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 19 March 2020 [Archived]

via Teleconference

Attendees:

• Tina Morris, Chair (TM)
• Leif Sawyer, Vice Chair (LS)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• Kat Hunter (KH)
• Alyssa Moore (AM)
• Anita Nikolich (AN)
• Amy Potter (AP)
• Joe Provo (JP)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• Chris Tacit (CT)
• Alicia Trotman (AT)
• Alison Wood (AW)
• Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela, (MA) Deputy General Counsel
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Sean Hopkins, (SH) Policy Analyst
• Richard Jimmerson, (COO) Chief Operating Officer
• Lisa Liedel, (LL) Director - Registration Services
• Therese Simcox, Scribe
• John Sweeting, (CCO) Chief Customer Officer

Observer:

• Paul Andersen, ARIN Board Chair

ARIN General Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.

Regrets:

• Kerrie Richards

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. She welcomed everyone to the call.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. CT asked that the ARIN 45 meeting discussion be discussed earlier in this meeting, due to a conflict that would have him leave this call early. The Chair agreed to do so stating the matter would be discussed after item 3, Approval of the Minutes.

3. Approval of the Minutes

It was moved by AW and seconded by RS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 20 February 2020, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

ARIN 45 Virtual Meeting Discussion

The Chair informed the AC that they need to cancel their travel plans to the April ARIN 45 Public Policy Meeting (PPM), due to the physical meeting being cancelled. She noted there has been a discussion via the AC’s mailing list about the possibility of ARIN holding a virtual meeting instead, and holding it in a reduced timeframe. She further noted that a draft agenda was sent from staff to the AC’s list to foster discussion. The Chair asked the AC to provide their thoughts on running a virtual meeting.

Paul Andersen, ARIN Board Chair, stated that the Board will be discussing this matter next week, and would be looking to work with the AC on what can be done with regard to the meeting’s timing. He stated that no decisions would be made today, and was making sure what is trying to be accomplished is understood, and what makes the best sense. He asked the AC not to worry about the mechanics of the virtual meeting but rather to think of what makes the most sense from a policy process standpoint in the near future, and to make sure that it also makes sense from a technical and participative standpoint. He noted that the President and COO have been working very hard with staff on the aspects of a virtual meeting, if it goes forward.

The President asked the AC to envision the potential for a remote meeting. If we proceed, then it would be done via Zoom Conference, and staff has already performed a dry run internally. Over the next few weeks, another run can be done with the AC. He stated that the most important thing is that the AC’s policy presentations be submitted early, as this will be essential for a successful, remote meeting. The President asked the AC to think of what they may need in advance in terms of relevant supporting statistics, presentations, etc.

AD asked how ARIN sees getting the discussions between participants in a live format. Is that possible or reasonable? Mr. Andersen stated that staff will work out the details. The President stated that ARIN has the ability to do it, but staff needs to research how well it will work and needs to make sure they have a streamlined approach.

OD stated that holding a virtual meeting will be challenging, but he believed it would be better than not having the meeting at all. He pointed out that here are a few recommended draft policies ready to be discussed. He did not believe a six-month delay would be best for the community. OD noted that this meeting could also be a test run for what may become the ‘new normal’.

JP stated that he is unclear if microphone fear is increased or decreased in a virtual environment, and has seen it go both ways depending on the audience. He noted the need to make sure that all of the recommended draft policies are covered, but noted that the time zone challenge is real. He suggested that two short blocks on two different days may be more amenable to the community.

CT stated that if the purpose of the meeting is to advance the Policy Development Process (PDP), and allow the Board to do its fiduciary duty through engaging the members, it needs to be done best in a climate where folks will not be preoccupied. He suggested assessing whether any policies are really essential to move ahead. If not, it may be better to defer the meeting to a later date. It may be possible to provide the Board’s reports in PowerPoint and disseminate them. He suggested, that if the meeting goes ahead, it should be kept short because potential participants are preoccupied with other matters. CT further noted that attention spans on lengthy calls is difficult even with breaks, and meeting over multiple days. He cautioned to focus on what is essential: nothing more than policy discussions and Board reports should form this meeting.

The President stated for the record that there is no organizational or Board reporting requirement for this meeting. We are happy to have the meeting in order to help the AC advance policy. He asked the AC to think hard about what they want – there are no other constraints or obligations on holding the meeting or its content.

RS posed the question “What if we do not get input we need through a virtual meeting? But, what if we do not get it at a physical meeting?” He stated he would be happy to get input in any way. He noted the one day versus 2-day virtual meeting timeframe. He stated that he was less sympathetic to the issue of the time zones of folks, but understood it. He did believe two days would be the better option.

AT stated that, as the situation is changing each day, folks may register but then no one participates. She was in support of having the virtual meeting, and stated that she would rather have shorter two-day span sessions. She noted that since folks are home, there are more calls that they are participating on and therefore they may not have the time needed to participate in a virtual meeting. She asked if there is no participation, what are the next steps?

The Chair stated it is a PPM for moving policy forward. ARIN will continue to engage the community. We will not know how much participation there will be. AN asked that folks will register, therefore won’t staff know ahead of time who will participate?

The President noted that if one is registered for the ARIN 45 onsite meeting, then they are now registered for an ARIN 45 virtual meeting, but the challenge is that life can get in the way, particularly under the present conditions, so it is not really possible to know how many of those registered will actually participate. The point is that at the end of the day you will get feedback from those who are interested in the policy proposals, and that is often more feedback than people provide on the PPML. The AC has been remarkably successful and because of that, many in the community do not worry about the Policy Development Process (PDP), so the meeting may not be heavily attended. If there is very low attendance, feedback will still be received on improving policy proposals; but obviously, the Board may defer advancing proposals that are based solely on a show of support done at a meeting with very low turnout.

CW joined at this time (4:27 p.m. EDT). The Chair updated him on the current discussion.

AD stated that this discussion is about wanting to make sure we have a meeting of substance. He stated that in looking at the policies currently on the AC’s docket, and the recommended draft policies on it, he did not see any that would cause an issue if they waited until the end of the year to be presented. He noted, for comparison, that last year the waitlist suspension was something that was both wanted and needed to be figured out. He believed, however, that the current policies are not at this point in time. He suggested the AC keep this discussion short, and get the work done that needs to be done. The Chair stated that she wholeheartedly agreed.

CT left the call at this time (4:30 p.m. EDT).

Mr. Andersen thanked the AC for the discussion, and reiterated that the Board would be discussing this at their meeting next week. The Chair stated that she would be participating in that discussion with the Board, and relaying what was discussed today.

4. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements

KH stated that the staff and legal review was received, and that she incorporated the suggested edits. She also added some clarifying text and posted it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). She noted that only one person provided feedback (OD), as the post had coincided with the COVID-19 outbreak. KH stated that additional edits were suggested, and she is working on incorporating them. She asked if the title should be changed from referencing Section 4 as the edits also clarify Section 8.

OD stated that personally he believed that although other parts are being edited, they are being edited to clarify Section 4; therefore, the title remains appropriate.

The Chair stated that she is open to suggestions, but did not disagree with OD. The Chair stated to KH that if she comes up with a title that is clearer, she would be open to it.

CW stated that once a policy is adopted, the title goes away and it does not go into the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM).

OD pointed out that a policy becomes part of the searchable archive for past policies, whether it is adopted or not. CW acknowledged the point and agreed. The Chair stated it was up to the comfort of the policy shepherd to change the title if desired.

KH noted that in regard to essential items with the next meeting being virtual and choosing which policies to present, there is work to be done on this policy. Therefore, when choosing which policies that need to be presented to the community, this policy is non-essential for that purpose.

5. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M&A

RS stated that he and KR discussed this policy and they have not made any changes because they would like a working group discussion to be held next week. He stated that he will send a request to the AC for those interested, and set up a call. RS stated that he will wordsmith the text and merge the staff and legal review comments. RS noted that the policy is not ready for last call at this time, as feedback needs to be incorporated

The Chair asked RS, if at the next meeting the community supports it, could the policy be moved to last call? RS replied that the policy definitely needs to be presented, and he will get it to that stage by the AC’s next meeting.

The Chair reminded the AC that 30 March is the deadline for freezing text changes.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M&A Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion

JP stated that the staff and legal review was received and did not have any issues, and there were no concerns shown on the PPML.

It was moved by JP and seconded by AD, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M&A Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 12 in favor, and one against (AD), via roll call vote.

7. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-20: Harmonization of Maximum Allocation Requirements under Sections 4.1.8 (ARIN Waitlist) and 4.2.2 (Initial Allocation to ISPs)

CW stated that there was one more statement of support on the PPML made subsequent to this policy becoming a recommended draft policy. He stated that it is ready to be presented at the next meeting, and he will gauge support at that point. CW noted that the policy is relatively straightforward and uncontroversial.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment

OD stated that minor comments were received in the staff and legal review conducted, and they have been applied to the text.

It was moved by OD and seconded by AT, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘ARIN-2019-21: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 13 in favor, via roll call vote.

9. Draft Policy ARIN 2020-01: Clarify Holding Period for Resources Received via 4.1.8 Waitlist

AT stated that none of the responses received supported the policy. She stated that the shepherds will continue to observe the comments, engage the community, and continue discussion.

It was noted that this policy and ARIN-Edit-2020-1: Clarify Holding Restriction for Section 4.1.8 Waitlist Entries were very similar in numbering and title. It was requested that the numbering system of policies deemed editorial changes should be changed, so as not to be confusing.

10. ARIN-Edit-2020-1: Clarify Holding Restriction for Section 4.1.8 Waitlist Entries

AW stated that this policy is under community review for another week and there has been some feedback of support on the PPML, but not very much.

11. ARIN-Prop-282: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

AM stated that she has been in communication with the authors, and they are satisfied with the edits. She noted that the text may not be as clear as it should be, and she will work on clarifying it. AM stated that she believed the proposal could be moved forward at this time, and will work on clarifying the language.

It was moved by AM, and seconded by AW, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-282: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 13 in favor, via roll call vote.

The Chair stated that the authors should be kept informed of the edits. AM stated she would like to see the policy presented to community, if a meeting were to occur. The Chair agreed.

12. ARIN-Prop-285: IPv6 Nano Allocations

AD stated that he has reviewed the text and found the problem statement to be clear and in scope for the PDP. He believed the topic should be discussed.

It was moved by AD, and seconded by OD, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-285: IPv6 Nano Allocations’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 13 in favor, via roll call vote.

13. AC WG NRPM Clean Up Update

JP stated that the WG held a call and had a productive meeting with a resulting list of actions and assignments. There are 8 items on the short list with more to come. They are working on a lead and resource model. JP stated that the group will hold monthly meetings and are also collaborating online.

The Chair stated that WG summaries could be done via email, but if there is anything that the groups want in the minutes, this is the opportunity.

JP further stated that four items on the list are a result of previous meeting discussions, and the other four came from their brainstorming session. The group welcomes input from AC and the community at large. There are documents the WG is happy to share with the AC if desired.

The Chair stated that she would like to read the documents and asked JP to please share them. JP acknowledged the Chair’s request.

14. AC WG PDP Improvements Update

AP stated that the WG had a few meetings that went very well. They are making the text easier to work with and easier to find items. They are reorganizing it chronologically, making it easier to use overall. They have a rough outline and are going through its section by section. AP noted some substantive changes, which will be provided to the AC for feedback. She stated that the group currently holds calls every two weeks.

15. AC WG Policy Experience Report Update

CW stated that the WG had two meetings thus far, and are holding them bi-weekly. They are scrubbing the last four policy presentations and determining what items have fallen through the cracks. They are looking to craft policy to address issues that have not previously been addressed. CW noted that more dynamic communication with ARIN Registration Services staff would be helpful to the group.

16. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

ARIN Travel Update

The Chair reminded the AC to submit any overdue expenses. The President stated that if an AC member finds it reasonable to wait to cancel flights for ARIN 45 they can, but under no circumstances will the AC members be responsible for fees incurred as a result of unwinding travel arrangements. AC members should work with staff on reimbursements, airline credits, or any other issues with regard to cancelling their travel plans for ARIN 45.

17. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:00 p.m. EDT. JP moved to adjourn, seconded by CW. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.