Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 20 March 2014 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair (JSw)
• Dan Alexander, Vice Chair (DA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Kevin Blumberg (KB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Tina Morris (TM)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• John Springer (JSp)

Minute Taker:

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel

• Einar Bohlin, Senior Policy Analyst

• Nate Davis, COO

• Leslie Nobile, (LN) Dir., Registration Services

General Counsel

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Regrets

• John Curran, Milton Mueller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted. It was acknowledged that SL would be delayed.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments. BD requested that Item 7., Draft Policy 2014-2, be discussed after approval of the Minutes. The Chair agreed to move the item up in the agenda. RS joined at this time (4:07 p.m. EDT)

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 20 February 2014, as written.”

SL joined at this time (4:08 pm EDT)

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip Language

BD stated that this Draft Policy (DP) came from David Huberman, who desired to remove all language associated with inter-RIR transfers. The DP Shepherds suggested modifying text to allow Inter-RIR transfers within an organization or its subsidiaries, which David supported. However, feedback from the PPC meeting, and from the AC, determined the focus should restrict received-block transfers rather than focusing on the organizations themselves. Revised text reflecting focus on blocks received was sent to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), and the AC. There has been little feedback. BD stated he would prefer to make a motion to move this DP to ‘recommended draft’ status, however, there has not been a staff and legal review requested. BD stated he would request this from the Chair.

4. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-7: NRPM 4 (IPv4) Policy Cleanup

It was moved by SL, and seconded by CA, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2013-7: NRPM 4 (IPv4) Policy Cleanup’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that the clean up had been uncontroversial stemming from the PPC meeting and from the PPML.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8: Subsequent Allocations for New Multiple Discrete Networks

CA stated the language is currently under revision.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use

The shepherds stated there was no update at this time. DF stated that he discussed this topic with Geoff Houston while in Malaysia recently, and will be posting text for review to the AC shortly.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip Language

Previously discussed, after item 3., ‘Approval of the Minutes’.

8. ARIN- Draft Policy ARIN-2014-3: Remove 8.2 and 8.3 and 8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size Requirements

OD stated that he was planning on abandoning this DP. He acknowledged recent posts on the AC’s mailing list, and the sense of the AC that it would be worth presenting it at the ARIN 33 meeting to receive the community’s input. OD he agreed with this logic.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy

JSp stated this DP was heavily discussed, supported, and was a simple policy.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. JSp stated the revised DP removes the section because it is technically-specific language that is no longer current. He supported the revision.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-5: Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations

SH stated there was still not a lot of discussion, and believed the DP should move forward, as she believed it was a good idea.

It was moved by SH, and seconded by JSp, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2014-5: Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations’ be moved to ‘Recommended Draft Policy’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. KB believed removing the section was “2 wrongs to make a right”. He explained that the lame delegation policy was not used due to issues surrounding it; and, not having it is just as bad. Removing the section will remove dealing with the issue altogether. KB was very concerned that by not having the section, and some way to deal with it, down the road an important technical aspect will be needed, but will not be in the policy.

HS agreed, and pointed out that lack of discussion on the matter does not mean there was consensus to remove the section. There had been no comments on the PPML, and very little at the PPC, but she did not support moving it forward and suggested trying to foster discussion or come up with some solution.

DF agreed with HS. He stated that he may not support the DP in the end, but he did not support the motion now.

BD believed that presenting it at ARIN 33 as a DP, and eliciting discussion was the right thing to do.

OD stated that he did not support the motion. He pointed out that adopting this DP as a recommended DP would leave section 7 with ‘reverse mapping’ and absolutely no other language. KB agreed with OD and stated that this was a key point. He cautioned that rather than having an omnibus policy that spells everything out, there are currently 9 proposals that remove anything related to the technical aspect of Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM); and, we need to be very careful of that.

The motion to move the DP to ‘Recommended DP’ status failed with all against via roll call.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove 7.1

RS stated this DP was hand-in-hand with the policy just discussed. He did not believe there was any urgency. He stated that some folks believed it should be harmonized with IPv6, and some believed the right thing would happen in time. RS believed it needed to be discussed at ARIN 33. All agreed.

Due to technical difficulties, the Chair was having difficulty being heard during the teleconference. The Vice Chair assumed Chairing the meeting.

12. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation Conservation Update

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update’ for adoption.”

The Vice Chair called for discussion. AD explained that the DP had been reduced to a one-word change from “two” to “three”, in section 4.4, related to exchange points. He acknowledged that some folks in the community would say it was “rearranging deck chairs”, but he believed that there was value in this change. He explained that when you have three people in an exchange point, and one of them drops, you have a renumbering issue. This change in policy provides longer-term value to exchange points in the overall public interest.

OD stated that he was opposed to the motion. He believed it was a 99.99% policy no-op and did not have a positive effect. He pointed out that it would be difficult for the Caribbean folks and that he would prefer not to hamper them in this way. He did not believe that changing it from two to three would hamper parties who would seek to misuse the policy – it was much ado about nothing. He believed there had been too much time spent on it, and there would be no benefit in moving it forward.

JSp agreed with OD, but still supported motion. With regard to the Caribbean countries, he pointed out that they had taken the time to raise the issue, and he was concerned about the consequence of disregarding their view. Open IX have ratified their standards in favor of three. He suggested it be discussed at ARIN 33; and, if there was opposition, that could be dealt with it after the meeting.

The Vice Chair clarified that the matter will be discussed at ARIN 33 regardless and explained that if this motion carries and the DP is adopted, it means we are looking for community support.

DF stated he believed it was important to remove the second sentence of the third paragraph of the current NRPM in 4.4 regarding: ISPs and other organizations receiving these micro-allocations being charged under the ISP fee schedule, while end-users will be charged under the fee schedule for end-users. It was DF’s understanding that we were eliminating that sentence. CA agreed that she understood that as well.

AD apologized for confusion. He clarified that his intent was to reduce the policy revision to a one-word change and move it forward. He noted that further cleanup of the section could be done at a later time. He believed the substantive change was more important for the moment.

JSp supported AD’s explanation.

KB supported the motion, but hoped it would have been a no-op to begin with, as he explained that one had to explain what an IX is in order to do it, and two parties did not equal an exchange. He would expect that more than two would be in existence when forming an IX. The higher number would set up barriers. It is not an exchange point with only 2 parties. He believed this was not a significant hurdle and supported the motion.

CA stated that the original proposal changed that, and it went from two parties to three. She was against the motion.

The motion carried with 8 in favor and 6 against (CA, BD, OD, SH, RS, JSw) via roll call.

BD announced that he needed to leave the call at this time (4:52 pm EDT).

13. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-8: Alignment of 8.3 Needs Requirements to Reality of Business

KB stated that he had sent a request for staff and legal review. He noted the DP was ready for community discussion at ARIN 33, and that there had been very little discussion thus far. He expected discussion at ARIN 33.

14. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements

HS stated that the PPML had been quiet and that she was attempting to foster discussion.

15. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-10: Remove Sections 4.6 and 4.7

It was moved by TM, and seconded by DF, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2014-10: Remove Sections 4.6 and 4.7’ be moved to ‘Recommended Draft Policy’ status for adoption.”

The Vice Chair called for discussion. TM stated there had been no significant staff or legal concerns. DF supported the motion, stating that the DP required cleanup. JSp was in favor of the motion, stating that the downside to leaving the sections in the NRPM outweighed the benefits of keeping them in it.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call.

16. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-11: Improved Registry Accuracy

KB stated that there had not been any discussion on this DP, and he would try to foster discussion on the PPML. He had plotted out suggested changes between the author and staff, and a revised draft would go out early next week. It was not ready for staff and legal review, but it needed community feedback for interpretation of the revisions.

RS announced that he needed to leave the call at this time (4:58 p.m. EDT).

17. ARIN-Prop-202: Anti-Hijack Policy

It was moved by DF, and seconded by CA, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘Anti-Hijack Policy’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Vice Chair called for discussion. CA stated that she believed the DP was well written, and technically sound. DF agreed. JSp agreed noting that the DP had a clear problem statement. He supported the motion.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call.

18. Improve Communications Group (ICG)

ICG members: BD (Chair), JSp, CA, and C. Grundemann (Community member). JSp stated that the IC was in the process of gaining momentum, and would meet and have more to discuss during the next AC meeting.

19. Any Other Business

The Vice Chair called for any other business.

KB stated that he noticed comments on the PPML that he believed derailed the technical standards of the NRPM. He was unsure if they were legitimate or not, but strongly believed that the AC needed a strong understanding of when it was acceptable to have technical standards in a policy or not. He believed there was a concerted effort from a small number of the community to remove these standards, and doing so would ruin the NRPM.

SL stated that he was unsure what KB meant by ’technical’. He noticed that folks had been discussing size and routing. KB stated his observance included that – the policies were done by the community, based on best practices and put into policy: block sizes and what was an acceptable size, DNS, registry services only, etc. KB noted a concerted effort toward removing these technical aspects of the NRPM. He pointed out the AC’s role is to determine if a policy is ’technically sound’ and he was concerned about the trend he was observing.

JSp stated that a number of these types of proposals were advancing, but that some were not. He queried if the AC should be make policy to exercise restraint on policy proposals. KB stated that no, the AC should ensure that it is well informed going into the next meeting with regard to what is ’technically sound’ when deciding on policy.

DA suggested fostering discussion on AC’s list and adding it to the next meeting agenda for further discussion. KB stated he was happy to take the discussion off list, but strongly believed that doing so after ARIN 33 would be too late. JSw stated that he would reach out to ARIN staff for feedback with regard to what was ’technical for the NRPM, and post it to the AC’s list.

SL stated that he agreed, but also believed that the larger issue was what ARIN’s role now was in light of IPv4 exhaustion, and other tasks ARIN has always done because it was the place to do them. Standards and policy making has been ARIN’s job, but now that the region is nearing IPv4 exhaustion, there was a philosophical issue about it. He was not convinced that there was more that needed to be done above what was already being done. He agreed the AC should keep an eye on things and discuss the pros and cons as usual.

DF supported taking note of KB’s comments and believed it was important. He also believed that the AC needed to evaluate the technical validity of each policy in its own context, and to remember that when evaluating them.

KB stated he was happy working within the Policy Development Process (PDP). To him, this was about what ARIN does, and it was outside of the PDP, expanding into ARIN’s function and/or role. He stated that this was is overarching concern. The Chair indicated that he would request a conference call to discuss this matter with John Curran, Nate Davis and others that have interest in this discussion.

20. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:12 p.m. EDT. It was moved by CA, and seconded by OD, to adjourn. The motion carried with no objections.