Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 25 October 2024

Toronto, Canada

ARIN AC Attendees:

  • Kat Hunter, Chair (KH)
  • Matthew Wilder, Vice Chair (MW)
  • Doug Camin (DC)
  • Matthew Gamble (MG)
  • 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)
  • Alison Wood (AW)
  • Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

  • Eddie Diego, Policy Analyst
  • Jenny Fulmer, Staff Attorney
  • Richard Jimmerson, COO
  • Jennifer Lee, Deputy General Counsel
  • Lisa Liedel, Dir. Registration Services (via Zoom)
  • Alyssa Arceneaux, Exec. Coord./Scribe
  • John Sweeting, CXO

Observers:

  • Tina Morris, ARIN Board Trustee
  • Chris Tacit, ARIN Board Trustee

1. Welcome.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:07 p.m. ET. The presence of a quorum was noted. She welcomed the AC to the meeting and the two observing Board members.

2. Agenda Review.

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

3. Approval of the Minutes.

(Exhibit A)

It was moved by MG, and seconded by LS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the 19 September 2024 Minutes, as written.”

The motion carried with no objections.

DC stated that feedback was positive, and there was community support for the policy.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. MW stated that there was great work done on this policy. He stated that there was one comment made by a member of the community, and he had a discussion with the commenter. He noted the person is now amenable to the policy as written.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

CW stated that community feedback was unanimous and positive. There was a request for an extended last call period in order to allow for people to raise any issues. CW stated he was happy to accommodate the request.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2023-7: Clarification of NRPM Sections 4.5 and 6.11 Multiple Discrete Networks’ to Last Call with Extended Last Call Period of 44 days.”

The Chair called for discussion. There was no further discussion.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

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

GG stated that there was much feedback in the room, and not as contentious as he expected, yet it was still polarizing. He noted good discussions at the policy table topic session, but most of it was from brokers, with some of their own suggestions on how to move forward. Two interesting suggestions made: 1) a dynamic system of allocation with those on the list and 2) a query on whether the list of addresses quarantined could be published beforehand. GG stated he was amenable to leaving the policy open, but it looks like it was moving toward abandonment.

Ms. Morris asked whether there were community members asking questions other than brokers. AW replied that they were all brokers and no members. The brokers were requesting a list of addresses that were going to be released.

The CXO stated that a meeting takes place every quarter to determine if returned/reclaimed space will be used to accommodate the waiting list or replenish the pools. This list of space cannot be shared as it would provide information about our customers that ARIN cannot reveal. The CXO also noted reinstatement could be requested by the holder.

MW agreed that the policy should be left open. BJ was not sure the problem statement will be addressed no matter how it moves forward. He stated that the idea came in as a proposal to reduce the waitlist time, but did not believe it would reduce it.

The Chair noted that the author did not want the protection clause because it does not fix the two to three-year concern, and agreed in the direction it is moving. MW noted that it does not fix it now, but it may change over the next couple of years. GG agreed and stated that the reason for the assumption does not fix the original problem, but there are issues arising that this could fix in the future.

GR stated that there was unanimous consent in not moving this policy forward, as it was not supported. He believed the definitions did not do what was expected.

It was moved by GR, and seconded by DC, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves to revert ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2024-1: Definition of Organization ID/Org ID’ to Draft Policy.”

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

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

The Chair asked for a statement regarding the reversion to be drafted for publishing.

LS stated that given the support online and from in-person participants, he would move the policy to ‘last call’.

It was moved by LS, and seconded by BJ, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2024-2: WHOIS Data Requirements Policy for Non-Personal Information’ to Last Call.”

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

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

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

BJ stated that this policy did not have community support, specifically regarding the definitions. There was a staff and legal review conducted, and there was a discrepancy found with regard to how many participants are required to make up an IXP.

It was moved by BJ, and seconded by MG, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2024-4: Internet Exchange Point Definition’.”

The Chair called for discussion. CW said that the main problem he heard from the community was having definitions living in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). The Chair stated that within the policies there are some opportunities to clarify the wording, specifically with what DS is working on, but if we are writing definitions for the sake of writing definitions, it opens the door to abusing the policy.

It was asked if the discrepancy could still be addressed. BJ believed that if the policy moves forward with the definition, it will continue to be criticized by the community. The Chair felt the definition could be used in other policies.

The CXO stated that the policy is trying to link IPv4 and IPv6 and that is not a good idea. DC asked if an IXP should be defined as two or three participants. The CXO replied that two separate organizations are required.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

The Chair asked for an abandonment statement to be drafted for publishing.

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

DS stated that there was a lot of positive feedback in the room for this policy and that the community feels that the work should continue.

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

KK observed that the community tends not to like definitions. He noted this was discussed on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), during the table exercise, and at the microphone. The community consensus was that this policy was not needed.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2024-6: 6.5.1a Definition Update’."

The Chair called for discussion. DC and KK, after receiving feedback, agreed that the way that this policy was written created conflict, and the more appropriate approach would be to create a definition of an ISP that is separate. If the goal of the policy was to clarify, then this policy does not do that — but to start again noting the differences would be far clearer.

The Chair noted that the author has the choice to work with an AC member to rewrite the policy if the author does not want to take it upon themselves to do so.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

The Chair asked for an abandonment statement to be drafted for publishing.

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

KP stated that the definitions did not have the community’s support, and agrees with the feedback being received. The feedback is it is not really a definition if it only points to other parts of the NRPM. KP stated she is leaning toward abandonment and asked if the policy should remain a draft policy to foster any more comments from the community.

AT asked if there is work that can be done to make it more palatable for the community. KP replied that they could condense the definitions and change the language. LS asked if the problem with the draft policy was so insurmountable that abandonment was the only option. KP replied she believed that she could rewrite the text. AT and MW both liked the option of KP rewriting the text and posting it for comments.

Ms. Morris exited the meeting at this time (1:45 p.m. ET).

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

EG stated that this policy was previously discussed on the PPML and there has been no consensus. At the table topics discussion during ARIN 54, it was agreed to abandon this policy. She further stated that everyone that came to the microphone agreed.

It was moved by EG, and seconded by GR, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20’.”

The Chair called for discussion. KP asked EG to include a graph of IPv6 in her abandonment statement. BJ felt that the sentiment regarding this policy was that it was a reactionary policy. The Chair noted that when the policy was written, the /16 had just gone out and there was a bit of panic, but no other /16s have gone out since. Another comment was that ARIN staff is doing a good job of checking that the space is needed before assigning it.

It was stated that ARIN has received a request for another /16 of IPv6, and they were approved for a /20 after being reviewed. ARIN cannot allocate a /17 of IPv6 due to policy in the ARIN region. ARIN cannot allocate a /17 of IPv6 due to an NRPM requirement that initial IPv6 allocations be made on nibble boundaries. EG stated that community feedback is favorable to the current nibble boundary policy.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

The Chair asked for an abandonment statement to be drafted for publishing.

AW stated that the community network policy has only been implemented one time and there is no advantage to applying for network space — which makes it more complicated — just make a direct request. CW asked if this refers to only IPv6. AW stated for clarity that this removes community networks completely noting that IPv4 went away earlier.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2024-9: Remove Outdated Carveout for Community Networks’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. There was no further discussion.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

15. Draft Policy ARIN-2024-10: Registration Requirements and Timing of Requirements with Retirement of Section 4.2.3.7.2.

AT stated that there were mixed reactions from the community. They did not like the grammar, and a question was asked about the ramifications of not adhering to the policy. There was a comment about the removal of acronyms. One specific question was the change of section 6 being removed from this policy. AT would like to update the policy with a staff and legal review, and then post the text to PPML for additional comments.

MW noted for the AC’s awareness that there were a few comments from the community on what should be reassigned, which is a much larger conversation and may not fit into ARIN’s Policy Development Process (PDP).

16. ARIN-prop-338: IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP).

BJ stated that a couple of bullets have been added to the policy, specifically the section in question, and believed that it meets the author’s requirements. He stated that the policy is technically sound and fair.

It was moved by BJ, and seconded by KP, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-prop-338: IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP)’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. KP stated there were extensive discussions with the policy author and ARIN staff on how open this can be, and she looks forward to the community’s feedback. CW anticipated there being a large misunderstanding of this proposal when it is posted, as it can easily be misread.

The Chair stated that she had the same concerns with the section that refers to /28s, and her belief was that it should be remanded back to the author only to clarify that section as it could be read in a number of ways. BJ acknowledged. CW noted that the text does state up to a /28. DC asked for clarification of the author’s intent. He interpreted this proposal as allowing an ISP who gets allocated a /24 under 4.10 to assign a portion of that to their sub-users for IPv6 deployment and attest to ARIN staff that is how it has been used, which represents a change from current policy and procedure. The CXO confirmed current procedure and how this would potentially change with this proposal.

CW asked if the question of the purpose and motivation was that ARIN gets to make the verification. DC believed the policy should be accepted as draft, even if negative feedback is anticipated, as the purpose of the body is to ensure that policy proposals receive an opportunity for community review. The Chair agreed. AT stated that she agreed with CW and DC, but has a question about the language and the term “up to” and its ambiguity.

LS stated that it could be misconstrued and could be read either way as currently written. Discussion on /28’s continued regarding the ambiguity of the language. MW stated that he supported moving the proposal to draft status and continue working on it.

KP asked if there was a mechanism, when posting it to the community, to draw attention to point out the potential for abuse.

DC and the Chair answered a question that shepherds may comment on their own draft policies on PPML if they believe it to be appropriate.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

17. ARIN AC Working Group.

  • Policy Experience Report (PER) Working Group Update. AW stated that they received a new report and will take November to review. The WG will meet in December.

18. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other business.

  • Changes in Employment and Affiliation. EG stated that she has been employed by LightPath.

  • Table Topics Update. The Chair said the table topics could have been discussed further, but felt that they were discussed fully during the policy sessions at ARIN 54. AT noted there was not a full table on the policy process table topic, but a top contributor on PPML stated that their concerns stemmed from a proposal that they put forward, and it appeared their policy shepherd did not like the proposal, and therefore the proposal did not go anywhere.

    CW pointed out that specific event was over a decade old, and may no longer be a valid concern. AT asked if there was anything to ensure this does not happen. The Chair replied that the community sees the AC communicating with the authors and asking for advice before abandoning policies. There are a lot of guardrails in place. MW spoke to how the author, as a member of the community, may feel disempowered once an AC member begins the shepherding process and they are no longer in control of the text. However, this hand-off is meant to empower and give a voice to the entire community to provide their feedback on the policy.

    The Chair stated that other RIR representatives commented on how well the policy is being handled by ARIN. They noted that the policy’s authors tend to get hung up on certain issues even when the community likes the policy and wants to move forward, especially when the policy is fixing the problem statement. The way ARIN does it works.

    CW noted another point, which was the practice of the AC to not make general edits to problem statements. AW noted that a policy shepherd can pass on a proposal and the Chair will assign it another shepherd.

    GG stated that policy shepherds do not change the policy once the author has submitted the text. He asked if this could be reiterated to ARIN’s community members. This is a reminder to all policy shepherds to make sure they are working with the author. The Chair noted that the PDP would have to be changed to change how the process is currently handled.

    DC shared there were notes taken at his table topic discussion and there were suggestions about cleanup in Section 4. He read out the feedback he wrote down with the committee for their consideration. He had a suggestion to staff on the flow of policy discussions at the ARIN Public Policy meetings. He stated it would be great to build in and know in advance what was going to follow the policy presentations so we could make adjustments, if needed. The CXO replied that this was a fantastic meeting and that this was the first time ARIN had this problem — and it was a good one. He was aware that there was room for improvement (e.g., being crisper on presentations, the use of a clock) and these issues will be discussed with staff. He also noted that the Board Chair is the owner of the agenda.

    The COO stated that policies come first, the Board Chair made that clear and that other items would be removed if there was a time crunch.

    The Chair reminded the AC that when they update policies to also update confluence and the Policy Analyst via email (Slack posts do not count). The official channel is through email.

  • Travel Reports. AT and the Chair noted the travel reports that are being submitted. The Chair will work on a guideline of what is expected in the reports from other RIR meetings and in making reports more consistent.

19. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 2:28 p.m. ET. CW moved to adjourn, seconded by MG. The meeting adjourned with no objections.

Related