Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 September 2020 [Archived]

via Zoom Conference

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

Regrets:

• Kerrie Richards (KR)

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged that KR is on extended leave.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

The Chair called for a motion to approve the AC’s August Minutes.

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

RS apologized stating he would be multi-tasking during the meeting, and therefore possibly refraining from voting on other items due to his lack of bandwidth. He stated that this policy has completed the last call period with no issues and he believe it was ready to move forward.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M&A’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

5. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2020-1: Clarify Holding Period for Resources Received via 4.1.8 Waitlist

CT stated that this policy is in a holding pattern until the ARIN 46 Public Policy Meeting (PPM) in October.

6. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3: IPv6 Nano Allocations

AD stated that this policy is ready for the ARIN 46 PPM and that he is updating the slides for such. The Chair noted to the AC that slides are welcome early, if available.

7. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-5: Clarify and Update Requirements for Allocations to Downstream Customers

KH stated that this policy is ready for presentation at the ARIN 46 PPM. She stated there has not been much discussion on Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), but she has had some discussions online.

8. Draft Policy ARIN 2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

AM stated that the staff and legal review has been conducted and is clean with no issues. She believed the policy can be implemented as written.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. AM stated that at the last meeting, there were questions as to the appropriate total holdings and what is the appropriate level of requests – how much an organization is eligible to request. She then read the language crafted from those discussions, noting that the bulk of discussion on the PPML appeared to be coming from groups that were removed from the list, and a few that supported the policy. She noted that there were a couple detractors that included AC members.

The Chair asked, with the new parameters, have we identified the number of organizations returned to waitlist? The CCO replied that there were 34 left to qualify.

AD stated that he did not support the motion as he did not believe it was widely supported by the community, but rather by only those who specifically would benefit from it. He believed the AC should see support broadly, even from those not receiving space.

OD agreed with AD’s comments. OD stated that he recalled speaking to the authors and that they complained that if they were not checked off list, a /22 would be problematic. He noted that we were looking to not be limited in that way, which is exactly what has resulted. If this policy is moved forward as-is, it would not satisfy the original people who were behind creating it. He found it ironic to be at this point, and unclear that the policy does anyone who is calling for it any good. He noted it was creating a bit of turmoil, and that there has been dissent on the PPML.

CW agreed with OD. CW personally believed that no one should assume that getting an application on the waitlist guarantees distribution of a block. It was never intended to be so, and asked if there was a special distribution that would come if the policy was passed. He stated that it was obvious to him that organizations would be placed at the front of list and be the first to get distribution. He asked if there is space being held to satisfy the requests if passed, or as available space comes in. The COO replied that those organizations would be the earliest, and there will be space there in the next quarter. He did not see a problem with them being fulfilled. CW asked would those organizations get them at the expense of the organizations already on the waitlist today? The CCO did not believe so because those organizations fall under rights extinguishment and distribution. We will fulfill the waitlist once again, but there are about 140 on it that will be filled (today) by our calculations. He noted that there may be some organizations that do not qualify. CW stated that it appears that limitations on the waitlist applicants has the impact of dramatically shortening the amount of time on the waitlist. Is that a fair assessment? The CCO replied that no one has waited more than 90 days since the new changes have taken effect.

The Chair suggested that because there is almost no waitlist now, we could remove the grandfather clause and change to a lower maximum - to a /18 - and ask folks to rejoin the waitlist if they want a /22. It could be another direction to go in and something to think about. The CCO clarified that folks would need to reapply in order to do that, and make sure they qualify. The Chair acknowledged.

AM stated that, with regard to reapplying, because of the grandfathering and applying long ago, those folks would be bumped to the front of the list. It has an appearance and effect of a yo-yo, and it looked odd to her. The CCO stated that they would not show up on the waitlist.

The President stated that they will need to request the resource, but on an express basis. We do not suggest the AC change our waitlist policy to accommodate the anticipated need for 34 or so organizations. Accommodating them would be a transitory event, and we want a policy that is widely applicable for the good of the industry. If we are trying to handle a transitory event in changing waitlist policy to meet a one-time circumstance, best not to change the policy.

AM clarified, to an earlier comment made with regard to the policy not satisfying the authors, that it is not true. It is their preference, but they are open to taking what they can get.

She further clarified, with regard to the comment on the policy being supported by only those who specifically would benefit from it, that there were 18 comments in favor and 5 against on the PPML. Of the 18, a few were long-time members who would not serve to benefit in anyway, and she strongly disagreed with the comment.

JP stated that while technically AD, OD, and CW covered the concerns, he agreed with the same representation concerns, and pointed out that the use of term ‘grandfather’ is problematic in the U.S. and other areas, and that the AC consider another way to phrase it. The Chair agreed noting that was an excellent point.

The Chair stated that she did not lean toward this policy moving forward; however, the process is fair, and she would be voting to move it forward because there is a PPM next month and the policy could be adopted. She noted that if the AC does not move the policy forward, it delays it. The Chair further noted that it does not have to go fully forward to the Board for adoption, and she agreed with the numbers.

CW stated that his personal lack of support is different from the community support, but he would vote yes because of community support.

The Chair stated that once we are at the PPM, we will have a better gauge of community consensus.

RS stated that he agreed with CW. RS did not like the policy, but understood the support shown. He stated it is not a bad policy, but is it is not good either; however, he would support it.

The motion carried 12 in favor, 2 against (AD, JP), via roll call vote.

The President stated that JP raised an interesting point with regard to the word ‘grandfathering.’ The term ‘Grandfather clause’ has some history associated with it, and we are aware of it. He noted that the AC may want to retitle the policy and pointed out that a traditional term to substitute would be ‘legacy,’ but the President did not recommend using ‘legacy,’ as it already has extensive use within ARIN in another way.

There was discussion of possible alternative titles, and there were no objections in the AC to renaming the policy to reflect “restoration” of organizations to the waiting list.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2020-6: Allowance for IPv4 Allocation “Swap” Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers and 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers

OD stated that there was no update for this policy at this time, and the status remains the same. He noted that he was unable to work on it this month and apologized. CW asked if it was ready for the PPM. OD stated that he believed it was in August, however the AC asked for more feedback from the PPML and he had failed to foster discussion. OD stated that the AC can move it forward if it believes it is ready, but he understood if they were reluctant to do so. CT stated that he would like to make the motion to move it to recommended status, and suggested that OD can still solicit input. CT stated that he did not want the policy to stall. OD agreed.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2020-6: Allowance for IPv4 Allocation “Swap” Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers and 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. AD stated that he had raised an issue on AC’s list regarding removing waitlist space from swap allowance, and that he will vote no until the text is fixed regarding this issue.

The motion failed with 2 in favor (OD, CT), 1 abstention (AP), and 11 against, via roll call vote.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-Allocation Clarification

AT stated that even with this editorial change, Section 4.4 gTLD Micro-allocation Clarification has some outdated language. We did have suggested language to attempt to bring Section 4.4 up to date, however this would require a large rewrite which expands the scope of the original problem statement. Therefore, she stated her intent to move this draft policy to ‘editorial change’ status. She suggested that alternatively, the large text changes can be a separate proposal. The Chair asked for clarity if she was suggesting that a new proposal be written and this one be abandoned? AT asked the AC what they thought – either to change the entire section, or make small changes and work out the new language in the entire section?

JP believed the change creeps outside of the definition of purely an ‘editorial’ change. OD did not believe that larger changes change staff procedure, and that they fit within the definition of editorial change, although more sweeping. He believed it is on the edge of what is considered an editorial change, but it did not change the context of the policy.

The Chair addressed JP and AT and asked if they believed it would become part of a larger editorial change later and that they would be doing double work. AT stated that is correct. The Chair saw three ways to proceed: move it forward as an editorial change, abandon it and submit another proposal, or edit this text. She noted it would be best to submit a new proposal that supersedes this policy before abandoning this policy, if that was to be the decision made.

AT replied that she would like to hold off moving this policy to editorial change status, and submit a new proposal that the AC can review and determine a way forward.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee

JP stated that initially there was a small amount of feedback on the PPML in response to the AC taking it on as draft policy, but there has been no feedback since the end of August. He stated that the policy shepherds are working on updating the text based upon suggestions from the community.

12. ARIN 46 Meeting Update

The CCO stated that there is nothing new to report and that the slides are moving along for presentations. There are no surprises on the meeting agenda. The President stated that staff should send the draft PPM agenda to the AC list. He noted that there will be two to three-hour sessions as was done in June at ARIN 45.

SH reminded the AC that Monday, September 21, the text freezes for any recommended draft policies, but not for status changes, newly-minted proposals, or re-titled recommended draft policies.

The Chair reminded the AC to register for ARIN 46. She also requested that the WGs send her a summary for her presentation to the community so that they can see the work the AC is doing and reach out to the AC with any ideas.

13. AC WG NRPM Clean Up Update

JP stated that the WG has regained steam and has its first proposal, purely editorial but largest, in final review.

14. AC WG PDP Improvements Update

AP stated that the WG finished its first draft, and asked the AC to review it. It has been sent to the AC list. She stated the AC can respond on parts of the PDP, and she would appreciate feedback in any manner that can be provided. AP stated that AD did a large amount of writing. The Chair thanked them both, acknowledging the large amount of work.

15. AC WG Policy Experience Report (PER) Update

CW stated that the WG is monitoring the following submitted proposals: ARIN-2020-5, 2020-6, 2020-7, and, 2020-8. He noted that 2020-5 through 2020-7 will be discussed at ARIN 46 in October, and 2020-8 is new draft policy. He asked if 2020-8 would be presented at ARIN 46. It was confirmed. CW further stated that the WG is working on language to address items from the latest, June, PER. The Chair asked for a summary for the slides and stated that she greatly appreciated the work.

16. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items. There were no other business items.

17. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:59 PM EDT. AD moved to adjourn, seconded by LS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.