Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 19 November 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)
• Kerrie Richards (KR)
• Chris Tacit (CT)
• Alicia Trotman (AT)
• Alison Wood (AW)
• Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela, (MA) Deputy General Counsel
• 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

ARIN General Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.

Observer:

• Matthew Wilder, 2021 AC Member-Elect

Regrets:

• Rob Seastrom

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. EST. The presence of a quorum was noted. She welcomed 2021 AC Member-elect, Matthew Wilder, to the meeting as an observer, stating he could not vote, but could ask questions. The Chair welcomed Kerrie Richards back to the Council, after her leave of absence. The Council welcomed them to the call. OD stated he had an item to discuss under any other business. The Chair acknowledged the request.

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

(Exhibit A)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 15 October 2020, as written.”

The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with all in favor and no objections.

4. Informational Item

On November 5, 2020, the ARIN Advisory Council confirmed the following, by action without meeting:

“The Advisory Council, recognizing the resignation of Tina Morris as Chair effective 1 January 2021, appoints Gary Giesen to fill the remainder of her current term ending 31 December 2021, in accordance with the AC Standing Rules.”

Each member consented to this action in writing by unanimous consent.

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

CT stated that the last call period concluded on 03 November for this policy and there were no further comments on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) from the community.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2020-1: Clarify Holding Period for Resources Received via 4.1.8 Waitlist’, 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.

6. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN 2019-16

AM stated that since last call, there were three or four threads on the PPML. She provided information on each to the Council, and noted that after last call the majority of people were in opposition to moving the policy forward. AM acknowledged that the Council has to weigh this information in addition to considering: the arguments for and against; the Policy Development Process (PDP); and, the interest of the community. AM personally believed that the arguments in opposition have to do with fairness and those against the policy have a different definition of fairness than what is stated in the policy. She stated she has an issue with that difference. She noted that there are arguments about the size of an organization’s holdings that the policy does not encompass on waitlist. AM noted difficulty in deciding the direction forward, and did not believe the policy was in a position to be advanced for Board adoption. She called on the Council for their thoughts. The Chair stated that she agreed with AM’s comments in that it is a challenging policy.

OD stated that he did not want to dismiss the policy with regard to fairness without merit, stating that those organizations have the right to be on the waitlist. He stated that the policy does not have to have consensus, but relatively broad support and opposition. Personally, he also believed it was not ready for Board adoption, and suggested that the policy be reverted to draft policy status to see if the Council can find a compromise with the community. If that cannot be found, the policy could be abandoned.

JP stated that he agreed. He struggled with the issue of fairness. For the record, he asked that the definition of fairness as written in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) be read into the minutes. SH provided the definition from the NRPM:

“6.3.6 Fairness

All policies and practices relating to the use of public address space should apply fairly and equitably to all existing and potential members of the Internet community, regardless of their location, nationality, size or any other factor.”

AN agreed with the idea of reverting the policy to draft policy status. She was not seeing substantive arguments on the PPML which would support advancing the policy to Board adoption. She suggested to either get more sub-arguments, or to draft new language.

CT cautioned the Council not to inadvertently allow the misuse of the last call process. He pointed out that a Public Policy Meeting (PPM) was held, and a substantial part of the community supported this policy. He noted that there was a small dissenting group, but there was also significant support expresed. CT stated that additional dissenting voices lobbied on PPML after the PPM and very late in the process, and does not appear to reflective of any overall change in community sentiment. He stated that given that the policy was not strongly opposed during the actual process, he did not believe that the Council should derail the policy and that it should be put to a vote. He stated that he was concerned that the dissenting comments that were received at the last-minute were not reflective on a real change in sentiment.

The Chair noted that there are times when there is no middle ground, as has been seen in the transfer market and in policies with a lot of opposition, and not everyone will be made happy. She stated that if the policy were to be reverted to draft policy status, she believed that there would still be polarized sides and no middle ground. She did not believe the policy can be made to appease everyone.

CW asked for the number of affected organizations. It was noted there were 26 organizations affected by this policy. CW observed that the impact of the policy is grossly disproportionate to the energy of those that supported and opposed it. He was convinced that reverting it to draft policy status was the right option as the overall effect of how this affects policies is small, compared to the amount of emails it has generated. CW stated he was not in favor or against it, but was making an observation.

OD did not believe a draft policy status is likely to be productive, but as a matter of process and the objections seen, the community was owed the Council’s attempt to do so. He did not see a better path forward than reverting it to draft policy status, but he was not optimistic that consensus would be found.

The Chair clarified that she was not alluding to abandoning the policy at this time, and that reverting to draft policy status is a valid option.

SH explained that no non-editorial changes can be made while a policy is in last call. If the policy was reverted to draft policy status, then a new last call period would begin. If the policy was not advanced to the Board, then within 60 days after the last call the policy reverts to draft policy status per the PDP. If it reverts to draft policy status, there is a petition process that can be invoked by the community to advance it to Board, which needs 25 people from 25 organizations. The Chair thanked him for the helpful information.

CW stated that the Council has tried and it should not put the policy to bed one way or the other. There was quite a bit of effort put into this policy. If it were to go to draft policy status, it should not be done so with an intent to abandon it, and not go through the effort again. He suggested it become a draft policy with revisions. The Chair agreed.

CT noted that a substantial number of members of the community were in favor at the PPM.

The Chair stated that a reverted draft policy cannot be advanced for adoption by the Board until after the PPM next April. This is something to be aware of process-wise.

CT asked if there was anything the Council could post on the PPML between now and the AC’s next meeting in December to gain more clarity prior to making a final determination with respect to how the policy should be treated. He acknowledged that automatic reversion to draft policy status happens 60 days after the last call period. CT stated that the next AC meeting is within 60 days, but reprieve is only useful if something can be done on the PPML that will result in greater clarity for the AC. The Chair stated that if the Council voted to revert the policy, the petition process could start sooner. She did expect that a petition would take place.

AN stated that she did not believe more clarity would be gained with regard to support or opposition. She believed that has been well expressed by the community. The opposing opinions of fairness are evident to whom this policy applies. She believed the Council should vote on what it has now, based on its opinions and the definition of fairness that the NRPM applies to policies. AN noted that it will be petitioned if it does not pass.

OD agreed with AN to vote on it at this time. He believed the best course of action the Council can do is to revert it to draft policy status and let the petition take place. It should be documented that it was reverted to draft policy status and make that available to the community.

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. AT stated that the policy went through the process and it is up to the Council. Whatever is decided, there will probably be a petition. She supported the motion.

CW stated that whatever direction is decided, the Board will evaluate it. If we revert the policy, it will end up at the Board with a petition for evaluation. Whatever the direction, the end state will be a Board-level evaluation on adopting the policy.

AM agreed the Council should vote on the policy, but clarified that her wanting to vote was to move the policy forward, not to revert it to draft policy status. She did not believe more clarity could be obtained on the PPML, as the community has voiced opposition. AM was not in support of the motion.

CT asked that if, there is a sense of how passage of the policy would affect parties on the waitlist in terms of their ability to receive resources. The CCO stated that he believed the most one could receive is a /22 and only 26 organizations could apply, and that would have no effect on waitlist.

CT stated that, if there is no effect on the waitlist, he believed that the motion on the table is the wrong one. Instead, there should be a motion for the Board of Trustees to adopt it and the Council needs to explain its reasoning to the community. He noted that there does not have to be consensus – there needs to be support. Under the PDP, the Board’s role is not to make a decision that the Council should be making. CT believed the Council should vote on advancing the policy. The CCO also noted that passing the policy would not make others who are on the waitlist wait any longer.

AM asked if there was a way to make it clear to the community that there will be no impact. She stated the word ‘fairness’ hinges on that idea. CT stated that if the Council passed the policy for Board adoption, and posted an explanation to the PPML, he believed that the issue would be resolved. AM agreed.

It was noted that Mr. Wilder, member-elect, wanted to know what the waitlist pool was versus this request? The CCO replied that almost all would get a /22.

The Chair stated that the motion on the table could be voted upon, or the policy could be advanced to the Board. The Council agreed to vote on advancing the policy forward if the motion on the table to revert the policy to draft policy status failed.

The motion to revert the policy to draft policy status failed, with 11 against and three in favor (OD, AN, JP) via roll call vote.

JP stated that if the Council were to advance the policy to the Board for adoption, it sends the message that the group believes there is support. The Chair replied that the AC has the ability to find consensus in the community, but will not get it with this policy. The overall impact to our current waitlist is non-existent from these requests. The Chair supported moving it forward.

JP stated that the policy has support, but that he had reservations about enacting policy that is a one-time policy. He believed it an operational aspect and not really in the Council’s jurisprudence. He believed the precedent was alarming – the Council getting into the mechanics of operations versus hard policy.

AM believed that there was no other way to address it, and it is not something that staff could have done. She did not believe it sets a precedent, but that it is a rarely used feature of the PDP. She noted that the Council understood it would not be perfect and that changes would have to be made. She stated that is what she saw the Council doing in this instance.

CT agreed with AM, noting that the Council heard that same reasoning last month, when the policy was moved to last call. He noted that nothing has changed, except that it is now known that the impact is immaterial on those who are on the waitlist, and there is support for the policy. AT agreed that the process was followed.

OD disagreed, stating that he believed that there is enough opposition. He pointed out that the term is ‘broad support’. He noted that there was a great deal of positive commenting on the PPML, and in community participation. It was a grass roots effort for the most part. He believed it does not represent a broad segment of the community, but rather narrow. OD stated he would vote against advancing the policy forward.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2020-2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for further discussion. There were no further comments.

The motion failed with eight in favor (AM, AP, LS, CT, AT, AW, CW, TM), and six against (OD, AD, KH, AN, JP, KR), via roll call vote.

AM asked what the next steps would be for the policy. The Chair stated that it will remain in recommended draft status until the AC’s next meeting.

CW stated that since the Council now knows that this policy has a negligible impact on the waitlist, it may be helpful to let the community know this and see if it changes opinions on the PPML, which the Council could then discuss in December.

AD suggested that after posting the Minutes, the AC policy shepherds should start a conversation on the status of this policy, and at the next AC meeting the policy could be moved forward if there is additional input and clarity provided. The policy will revert to draft policy status if nothing happens without action, and it can be presented again to the community.

OD agreed with AD. He stated that the Council recognizes that it was unlikely to advance the policy to the Board, and to let the authors petition it earlier than waiting 60 days. He stated that if we want to vote on it next month, we may get a different outcome.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council notes that the community strongly supports ‘ARIN- 2020-03: IPv6 Nano-Allocation’ fixing a fee issue for 3x-small ISPs which appears to provide a disincentive for IPv6 deployment. However, the community appears agnostic to favoring a fix of this issue in the fee schedule rather than in number policy; and, the AC recommends that the Board of Trustees consider fixing this issue as part of a fee schedule update rather than via policy. This policy has completed a successful policy development process for ‘ARIN-2020-03: IPv6 Nano- Allocation’, and is strongly supported by the community and thus the AC forwards this recommended draft policy to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. She stated that she appreciated extended motion.

CW asked for clarification of the wording of the motion, if the interest is to give the Board the choice to adopt the policy as the motion is written, or make a fee schedule change rendering it mute? AD clarified that his motion brings the issue to Board as: the policy has gone through the PDP, and is supported by the community, but the recommendation from the Council is that the Board consider doing something different. That is our recommendation to the Board as the whole Council.

CT stated that he was unsure if the motion was procedurally correct. He added that he did not see a problem with addendum, as separate message, to the Board, but he was unclear if the Council has the authority to include it as part of the resolution.

AD stated that we are, as a body, making a recommendation to the Board to consider fixing the issue in a fee schedule rather than in the policy.

Deputy General Counsel stated that he wanted to ensure that the motion is not based in fee consideration, and that it is kept separate. Noting that the community has commented on it is not a problem, but there is an issue with the perception that the Council is trying to affect fees. He asked if it was necessary to have this in the motion.

AD replied that he believed that it was important. CT asked if the Council’s stated support would not be sufficient as recorded in the minutes? AD stated his strong preference for the language in the motion. He pointed out that the Council can reject it and vote a second motion. AD further noted that he had sent it to the Council’s mailing list in advance. He stated it is important because we are creating policy to fix a fee issue. If the Board wants to do so with a fee schedule instead, he was in support of it. He believed that is the Council’s intent in the motion, as written.

The Chair stated that the community was in support of some allocations rather than none. She acknowledged that the Council cannot fix fees.

The CCO pointed out that the Board Chair was part of the session discussion during the last ARIN PPM and moderated it. The Board is aware of the matter.

Deputy General Counsel stated that it is important to keep the motion within scope and that the best course of action would be to have the motion without the reference. He advised that the Council can inform the Board separately. The Council can make it clear that there are other options, but that it is not necessary for the motion.

AD asked how that can be done. Counsel responded that the minutes will show the discussion, or the Advisory Council can send a communication to the Board that indicates its intent. Counsel advised that the Council could keep it separate, and notify the Board that there is a feeling within the community. This would keep it separate from the policy. The CCO pointed out that the Council should not be making fee recommendations to the Board.

OD noted that the Council has one tool and it is policy. We are attempting to use it to solve a problem that the community presented, which is that there is no good solution for those ISPs using IPv4 that wish to implement IPv6. The correct tool is through fees, and we would like the Board to use it to do so.

The Chair asked AD to yield to the Chair on proceeding. AD concurred. The Chair requested that the Council move the customary motion to advance the policy for Board adoption, vote, and read in a statement to go with it.

AD withdrew the previous motion.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3: IPv6 Nano Allocations, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The motion carried with all in favor, via roll call vote. It was acknowledged that AD’s statement will be included in the communication.

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

KH stated that the policy was moved to last call at the last meeting and concluded on 03 November. There were no issues during the last call period.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-05: Clarify and Update Requirements for Allocations to Downstream Customers’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

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 have not been any changes and that he hoped to have more information for the next meeting.

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

AT stated that the staff and legal review was conducted and there were no issues.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-Allocation Clarification’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

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

JP stated that language was edited based on community feedback from the PPML. There was a numbering issue and he asked for any comments. The Chair asked if he was going to look for more discussion. JP stated yes, and that he would recirculate the text to the PPML.

12. Draft Policy ARIN-2020-9: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Section 4 and Related Provisions

AW stated that they are working through changes, and that CT had offered to assist. She stated that she will get a draft to him in the next couple of weeks. CT agreed to be of assistance.

13. ARIN-Prop-293: Removal of Requirement to Demonstrate Utilization of Reassignments and Reallocations for ISPs Seeking Initial Allocation from ARIN

AP stated that the proposal is in scope and has a clear problem statement.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-293: Removal of Requirement to Demonstrate Utilization of Reassignments and Reallocations for ISPs Seeking Initial Allocation from ARIN’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

14. AC WG NRPM Clean Up Update

JP stated that the WG established a new meeting schedule. They are waiting to hear if policy shepherds have any need to discuss ARIN-2020-9. Additional editorial changes in NRPM Section 6 draft work is under discussion within the WG. Lastly, very minor editorial changes in Section 8 ASN language has been updated in the NRPM draft.

15. AC WG PDP Improvements Update

AP stated that there was some challenge in getting a schedule set for meeting and she will be working Thanksgiving to discuss cleanup work. She stated that she will have a final draft before the end of this year.

16. AC WG Policy Experience Report (PER) Update

CW stated that there is currently no update as the WG has worked through all of the outstanding PERs Therefore, the WG is suspended until there is a next PPM, and it will be an ad-hoc working group until the next PER is produced. The Chair stated that the future agendas will reflect ‘WG suspended until next PER is published’.

17. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

• Including Previous Minutes with Agendas. The Chair stated that CT requested this item so that the Council could review the previous minutes one last time before each meeting for any issues. She stated it was a good idea and asked staff to do so going forward. She thanked CT for the suggestion.
• 2021 January AC Meeting. The COO stated that the President had consulted with the Board and AC Chairs about holding their respective, customary January face-to-face meetings. He stated that reliably predicting safe travel in January cannot be done, therefore, it is recommended that the Board and AC meetings be held virtually. The Chair acknowledged and agreed.
• Out-going AC Chair. OD suggest that the Council congratulate Tina Morris on her election to the ARIN Board of Trustees, and thank her for her service as Chair of the Advisory Council. The Council agreed and thanked Ms. Morris for her service.
• Transition Planning. The Chair stated that the Council will need to elect a new Chair, via email, in light of her election to the ARIN Board of Trustees. She requested a workshop in December, following the close of the AC’s December meeting, to provide Council members a chance to discuss the Council’s direction before welcoming a new Chair. She praised LS for his great work as the Vice Chair to the Council. She stated the workshop would give the AC the ability to discuss and put forth nominations for a new Chair, and share their thoughts on the group’s direction.

OD asked if the newly elected members would be included. The Chair replied that as the workshop will be off the record, unless Counsel objects, newly elected members should be included.

CT requested if those interested in leading could declare that intent at that time. The Chair agreed. She also stated that those who want to run for Chair should state why and give the members the opportunity to discuss.

18. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:29 p.m. EST. The meeting adjourned with no objections.