Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 August 2024

Teleconference

Draft Minutes

These minutes are DRAFT. They have been reviewed by the ARIN Advisory Council prior to posting. These minutes will remain draft until they are reviewed and approved by the ARIN Advisory Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting.

ARIN AC Attendees:

  • Kat Hunter, Chair (KH)
  • Matthew Wilder, Vice Chair (MW)
  • Doug Camin (DC)
  • Gerry George (GG)
  • Elizabeth Goodson (EG)
  • Brian Jones (BJ)
  • Kendrick Knowles (KK)
  • Kaitlyn Pellak (KP)
  • Gus Reese (GR)
  • Leif Sawyer (LS)
  • Daniel Schatte (DS)
  • Alicia Trotman (AT)
  • Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela, General Counsel
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Eddie Diego, Policy Analyst
  • Jenny Fulmer, Staff Attorney
  • Richard Jimmerson, COO
  • Lisa Liedel, Director, Registration Services
  • Therese Simcox, Sr. Exec. Assist./Scribe

Regrets:

  • Matthew Gamble
  • Alison Wood

1. Welcome.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. ET. The presence of a quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review.

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. The President requested adding a discussion to any other business regarding recent discussions on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). The Chair acknowledged.

3. Approval of the Minutes.

(Exhibit A)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the 18 July 2024 Minutes, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

DC stated that there have been no changes, and the policy is awaiting presentation at ARIN 54.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2023-7: Clarification of NRPM Sections 4.5 and 6.11 Multiple Discrete Networks.

CW stated the policy is awaiting presentation at ARIN 54. He noted that the staff and legal review had minor recommended language changes. He asked that if he publishes the changes to the PPML, would September be too late to move the policy to recommended draft policy status. The Chair stated that if the changes are in accordance with the staff and legal review and not substantive, it can be done. CW stated he will do so and incorporate any feedback received.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation.

GG stated that he posted a request for comment on the PPML and received many comments, but noted that the comments are polarized. He has suggested that the Policy Analyst formally update the policy next week and, based on what happens in the next two weeks, it will determine actions to be taken in September. He noted strong feelings on either side of the policy with no clear direction, but there is a lot of discussion.

The Chair acknowledged the amount of feedback received, and agreed it will be good to formalize the language based on it.

KP asked about the reason the language in Section 4.1.8, regarding maximum size aggregate, was removed regarding an organization can request ‘at any one time’ a /22. GG responded that the changes are in line with recommendations for a /24. The changes were made in areas where it was referenced as a /22. KP noted that the change implies anyone on the wait list will only ever qualify for a /24 and noted that it does clarify it. GG stated the grandfathered clause was supposed to address that if an organization asked for a /22 they are not limited to a /24 only. KP thanked him for the explanation.

GR stated that there have been no changes, and the policy is awaiting presentation at ARIN 54.

8. Draft Policy ARIN 2024-2: WHOIS Data Requirements Policy for Non-Personal Information.

LS stated that the staff and legal review was received with recommended changes. He and DS will meet next week to review edits to the text and repost it to the PPML.

9. Draft Policy ARIN 2024-4: Internet Exchange Point Definition.

BJ stated that the word ‘ethernet’ was removed from the language and reposted to the PPML. He noted that positive feedback has been received, although not much. The policy is awaiting presentation at ARIN 54.

10. Draft Policy ARIN 2024-5: Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation.

DS stated that there is no update at this time. The shepherds are working though the feedback received from the PPML.

11. Draft Policy ARIN 2024-6: 6.5.1a Definition Update.

KK stated that there are no changes at this time. He noted that the policy may benefit from discussion at ARIN 54 to receive wider feedback, as it is a situation of a small fix now or a larger fix later.

12. Draft Policy ARIN 2024-7: Addition of Definitions for General and Special Purpose IP Addresses.

KP stated that there are no changes at this time, but she intends to foster discussion on the PPML for more feedback either way. Feedback received has indicated that the policy does not cause harm, but there are no strong opinions. MW agreed and suggested getting the community to see if the problem statement resonates with them and, if so, they can support it. If not, then abandonment would be in order.

13. Draft Policy ARIN 2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20.

EG stated that the policy was posted to the PPML recently with targeted questions to the community. Concise and distinct responses were received, but they are mixed and there is no consensus. She indicated discussing it at ARIN 54.

14. Draft Policy ARIN 2024-9: Remove Outdated Carveout for Community Networks.

AT stated that there are no changes at this time. She will post a request for comments next week on the PPML.

15. ARIN-prop-337: Modernization of Registration Requirements.

AT stated that this proposal is in scope, and technically sound with an impartial and fair problem statement.

It was moved by AT and seconded by BJ that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-prop-337: Modernization of Registration Requirements’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for comments. The Chair stated she believed the proposal can be moved forward to draft policy status, but suggested changing the title of the policy to avoid any confusion with the previous, abandoned proposal as the problem statement has changed. AT agreed.

CW suggested the title to be “Change of Registration Deadline for Registration Requirements.” The Chair agreed and stated it can be changed after the proposal is moved to draft policy status.

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

16. AC Working Group.

  • Policy Experience Report Working Group (PERWG) Update. No updates at this time.

17. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other business items.

  • Changes in Employment and Affiliation. CW stated he is no longer affiliated with his employer.

  • Policy Development Process (PDP). The Chair noted PDP reminders for September and October meetings. She stated that any draft policies need a staff and legal review before they can be moved to recommended draft policy status.

  • Staff and Legal Review Deadline. Deadline for September AC meeting is 4 September.

  • NANOG/ARIN Meeting Registrations.

    • NANOG Early-bird Registration. Registration ends 19 August.
    • Flight Information Email. The Chair noted that staff sent a detailed email on 30 July regarding ARIN 54 Travel Planning. Please be sure to register and have travel plans in place.
    • ARIN 54 Registration. Registration opened 6 August.
    • Upcoming Board Meeting. The Chair noted that the ARIN Board will meet next week and has a policy ratification on their agenda.

  • Recent PPML Discussion. The President noted a recent discussion regarding the appropriateness of the AC taking editing control of draft policies. Discussion ensued regarding how some community members take exception to the fact that the authors do not retain the editing rights to their proposals during the policy process. He pointed out that ARIN has a formal policy process, including a petition process, that is designed to provide open and fair treatment of all proposals. The President further stated that ARIN’s Policy Development Process (PDP) was recently updated, and there were no concerns raised about the ARIN AC retaining editing control during that discussion.

    The President suggested that the AC, at one of their face-to-face meetings, brainstorm the matter and consider if it is worth letting the authors retain the editor’s pen while in draft stage and if the author is responsive.

    He noted that although the PDP was just updated, another update could be done if necessary. He advised the AC to discuss the PPML input and if they believe it is needed, another update can be launched. If the AC does not consider it worthwhile, then the PDP should stay as-is.

    Discussion ensued with AC members voicing opinions on being more neutral when they post to the PPML. MW stated that neutrality of a policy shepherd is of benefit to the community as it ensures no bias for or against the text. Overall, the system is beneficial. He pointed out that if an AC working group submits a policy the AC does not assign anyone involved in it to shepherd that policy — neutrality and objectivity are important.

    KP stated that although the complaint on PPML was about authors not having ‘the pen’ once the policy is submitted, no one provided a concrete example of it. She stated she would like to see an example to understand it fully. She also pointed out that one of the main people pushing this forward on the PPML wants to join the AC and she would welcome it, wondering if their perspective would change.

    CW noted that the origin of the discussion represented frustration of the authors submitting a policy but no longer being in control of it. He noted too that no examples of that were provided. He acknowledged that the AC does have ‘the pen,’ but wondered if there are ways the author can be kept in the loop when changes are made by the AC, as a courtesy, to see if the author has an opinion about it (e.g., sending a private request for feedback). The President stated it can be easily done if the AC agrees, but it is hard to know if it would satisfy people. Some folks are upset with the theory that they do not hold the pen, but again have not provided any examples. He believed that if it is indeed that theory, then a request will not ameliorate them.

    The Chair suggested that another possibility could be some specific time limit — for example, reaching out to the author and give them a month to respond. She noted however the time frame cannot be long if it holds back policy development.

    The President reiterated for the AC to review the PPML discussion to consider if it is an issue, and discuss it as a group if they so desire.

    MW suggested that this item is a suitable table topic for ARIN 54 regarding inclusion of authors in the editing process. He did note that many commenting on PPML do not attend policy meetings, but having it as a table topic may be worthwhile regardless.

  • Table Topics. The Chair asked the AC to consider table topics for ARIN 54, especially if an AC member has an active policy on PPML. Please contact the Chair or Vice Chair with items.

18. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:47 p.m. ET. MW moved to adjourn, seconded by LS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.

Related