Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 21 May 2015 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

• Dan Alexander, Chair (DA)
• Kevin Blumberg, Vice Chair (KB)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• David Huberman (DH)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Tina Morris (TM)
• Milton Mueller (MM)
• Leif Sawyer (LS)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)
• John Springer (JS)
• Chris Tacit (CT)

Minute Taker:

• Einar Bohlin (EB), Sr. Policy Analyst

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis, COO
• Richard Jimmerson (RJ), Interim Director, Registration Services

Counsel

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Absent

• Owen DeLong

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments. DH requested adding a discussion on polling to any other business. The Chair agreed.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 15 April 2015, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove Operational Reverse DNS Text

(RS joined at this time, 4:07 p.m. EDT.)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove Operational Reverse DNS Text’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. JC reminded the AC to address any concerns expressed during the last call period. The Chair mentioned there was one post of objection during last call. KB noted that the objection was part of the earlier discussion, reiterating that the text was a no-op. He noted that it had not been enforced; and that, even though the post had raised a concern, it was already addressed.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

5. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from Last-Allocation to Total-Aggregate

As an informational item, the ARIN Board of Trustees adopted this Recommended Draft Policy at their meeting on 13 April 2015.

6. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF noted one post during the last call period that supported the proposal. He stated that there were some objections expressed during the earlier discussion, which were addressed in the AC’s modified statement of conformance with the Policy Development Process (PDP) principles that had been posted along with the Draft for last call.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments

DH stated that he would ask for a staff and legal assessment. The Chair asked DH for slides and any particular points or questions to cover at NANOG 64. SL stated he would be attending the ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC) being held during NANOG 64; and, he had slides ready. The Chair stated he would request the staff and legal assessment after this call.

8. ARIN-Proposal-216: Modify 8.4

CT stated that he reviewed the proposal with the author via teleconference.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Proposal-216: Modify 8.4’ as a Draft Policy’.”

The Chair called for discussion. CA and CT agreed that the proposal was clear and within scope.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

The Chair pointed out that proposal authors may vote for their own proposal. CT agreed to make slides for the upcoming ARIN PPC.

9. ARIN-Proposal-217: Remove 30-day Utilization Requirement in End-user IPv4 Policy

LS stated that the problem statement was clear, recommending accepting the proposal as a Draft Policy. LS asked if a proposal has to be discussed on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) before becoming a Draft.

The Chair thanked LS for posting the shepherd review to the AC’s list. The Chair stated that prior to this teleconference, he had been referring to the proposals that were submitted within the last 24 hours - not this proposal.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Proposal-217: Remove 30-day Utilization Requirement in End-user IPv4 Policy’.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that the problem statement was clear, and that he would make slides for the upcoming ARIN PPC.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

10. ARIN-Proposal-218: Modify Section 8.2 to Better Reflect How ARIN Handles Reorganizations

AD stated that he and OD believed this proposal to be an editorial change. DH, as the author, noted that all of the text is still in the proposal, but it is in a slightly different order. The Chair said that if the AC agreed that this was an editorial change, the AC would need a motion to make it so.

KB asked what the bar was for an editorial update. The President noted that the PDP allows for editorial updates with public notice, and then requires the AC and Board concurrence. If the community voiced concerns, the AC could instead decide that the change was non-substantial.

JS stated that he would like to review the text and that he was not prepared to vote on this as an editorial update. KB voiced objection to making a motion, stating that it was more than an editorial change – it was substantive. The Chair noted that the last editorial update done by the AC concerned changing the AS number ranges that had been based on an RFC.

RS stated that he agreed with KB: the mere fact he was on the edge meant the AC should err on the side of caution and utilize the PDP. DH stated, as author, that he never considered the change to be editorial. He was surprised when that was suggested. He believed it was editorial, but still a policy proposal.

MM viewed this as a clarification, thus editorial. He asked if it changed the actual affect or intent of the policy? RS stated that there could be confusion about the policy, and that merely ratifying this could result in misunderstandings. JS noted that the problem statement was clear, and was within scope. He was prepared to move it to Draft Policy status.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Proposal-218: Modify Section 8.2 to Better Reflect How ARIN Handles Reorganizations’.”

The Chair called for discussion. AD noted that because there were three AC members who expressed concern about making this an editorial change, he moved to make it a Draft Policy.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

AD agreed to provide slides and any points to cover when presented at the upcoming ARIN PPC.

11. NANOG 64/ARIN PPC Update

The Chair noted that he, KB, TM, JS, and SL would be attending the ARIN PPC during NANOG 64. The Chair spoke about a call with KB, Tony Tauber and Matt Petach of the NANOG Program Committee (PC). They discussed the time slot, and the process for requesting time on the NANOG agenda. He mentioned that, for future meetings, the AC would manage the request for the PPC. The Chair talked about changing the format of the June meeting. Rather than just running through all of the proposals, which can be confusing to new NANOG members, the AC would add an introduction and update on the status of the IPv4 free pool. The middle part of the PPC would be the proposal presentations. The AC would then open conversation to hear thoughts about ARIN’s PPCs in general - how they could change or be improved, and what information people wanted.

MM stated he had recently attended the RIPE 70 meeting, which he stated was a combined RIR and NOG in a single event. RIPE succeeds in getting operators and policy people together. MM asked if the ARIN PPC could get placed into the plenary? The Chair stated that in June the ARIN PPC would be in a breakout room. The President stated that NANOG has been considerate in not scheduling a main session concurrent with the ARIN PPC - though there will likely be tutorials or workshops. He suggested that the AC could request plenary session time, but cautioned that the AC had to keep the attention of the 800 people in the room. RS offered to talk offline about the history of NANOG and ARIN.

KB stated that the upcoming ARIN PPC would be Monday afternoon opposite tutorials. The AC worked well with the NANOG PC to not place the ARIN PPC opposite of a major session. Feedback from the NANOG PC suggested that ARIN sprinted with the audience, vs. walking first, then jogging and then running. The NANOG folks need explanation and background. KB noted that dialog with the NANOG PC was very good and needed to continue.

The Chair agreed that the call with the NANOG PC was very productive. JS noted that on the NANOG agenda, the ARIN PPC is opposite the data center track and the research and education track. The President stated that there was no assurance that there would not be anything opposite the ARIN PPC. NANOG has enough content to add more tracks, and ARIN is glad that its PPC was not opposite a plenary session.

The Chair stated that the AC has increased credibility with the NANOG PC; and that the AC needs to make ARIN PPCs better and relevant. We need to help the NANOG PC receive constructive feedback from their community. The Chair mentioned that the AC needed to decide what to do with the October ARIN PPC. He stated that he would take that discussion to the list, and also the discussion about Friday in October.

SL asked if the presentation of proposals just received would be presented at the ARIN PPC? He noted that until proposals advance to Draft Policy status, they are not posted to the list.

(Counsel left the call at this time 5:00 p.m. EDT.)

CT stated that he had committed to submitting a proposal when 2014-1 failed, and people asked him for progress and urged him to submit text. He stated he had submitted a proposal and, unless there is a problem, there is urgency to get it before the community. AD noted that anyone could post a proposal to the PPML at any time. CT asked about presenting at the ARIN PPC. The President stated that at the ARIN Public Policy Meetings (PPMs), all Draft and Recommended Draft policies must be presented, whereas, what the AC does at an ARIN PPC is up to the AC. The AC can present just a few policies, or have a panel, etc. But twice a year during the PPMs, all drafts must be presented.

The Chair noted that the AC has more flexibility at ARIN PPCs and can discuss the concepts, etc. CT stated that he wanted to guarantee a slot for presentation at the ARIN PPC.

JS noted that three proposals were accepted today as ‘Draft’. Regarding the three new proposals received yesterday and today, does the AC want to present these at the ARIN PPC? The Chair confirmed that new proposals could be added to the discussions at the ARIN PPC. JS noted that some of the proposals were similar content to existing drafts and could be presented together. The Chair agreed.

12. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

Polling

DH noted that Survey Monkey could be use to conduct straw polls, with the caveat that ARIN staff would need at least 15 to 20 minutes to run a poll. There was discussion on the AC’s list with regard to expanding straw polling. The Chair noted there were still questions on the list. He asked if the AC was at the point of requesting that the ARIN Board do something. DH replied that consensus was not there yet. CT agreed. DH stated that he would continue to work on the AC’s list.

ND stated that he would want to test a polling system out first, to ensure it would work at an ARIN meeting. KB asked for feature sets and limitations, and a walk-through, so that the AC could understand the system’s capabilities. CT agreed to help, noting he had previously worked on balloting at meetings.

Update to ARIN 35 Policy Experience Report

DH stated that he had posted an update to the AC’s list regarding the policy experience report that was presented at ARIN 35; and, he noted that there was still an open item on POC validation.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:12 p.m. EDT. JS moved to adjourn, seconded by RS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.