Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 20 August 2015 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

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

Minute Taker:

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

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

Counsel

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Absent

• Heather Schiller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted and the Chair welcomed everyone to the call.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the AC and called for any comments. RS requested that item 10 be discussed early as he was the shepherd of that policy and had a conflict that required him to leave the call earlier than anticipated. CT also requested that item 11 be discussed early as he was experiencing technical difficulties. The Chair agreed.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 16 July 2015, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

The Chair stated items 10 and 11 would be discussed at this time.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified Requirements for Demonstrated Need for IPv4 Transfers

RS stated that due to conflicts that had arisen, he had been unable to work on the text; however, he posted a message to Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) today. He requested that a staff and legal review be conducted, and the Chair agreed to submit the request. MM stated that he too was remiss, due to moving and getting situated in his new location.

11. ARIN-Prop-222: Reassignment Records for IPv4 End-Users

CT communicated with the author and they believed the proposed policy statement to be clear and within scope.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-222: Reassignment Records for IPv4 End-Users’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair asked if CT had sent the initial review template to the AC. CT stated he had not, but would promptly do so.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call.

The Chair resumed the agenda in order.

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

SL stated that revisions had been made and the text would be posted to the PPML for feedback. The policy will be presented at ARIN 36 Public Policy Meeting (PPM) in October.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients)

CA stated that the policy was be ready to be presented at the PPM in October; but she would try to foster further discussion on the PPML. CT agreed.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-day Utilization Requirement in End-user IPv4 Policy

DF stated that the staff and legal review was received today, and that the AC needs to review it. He believed that staff had made good recommendations to clean up references RFC 2050 and other references made in the text that will be incorporated into the revisions.

The Chair reminded everyone that all revisions needed to be made by September 8th, in order for policy text to be presented at the PPM.

7. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4: Modify Section 8.2 to Better Reflect How ARIN Handles Reorganizations

AD stated that the policy text was posted to the PPML, but no feedback had been received. The policy is be ready to be presented at the PPM in October.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out-of-Region Use

TM stated that the staff and legal review had been received today. She stated she would speak with the author and she acknowledged the September deadline. MM noted that the staff and legal review states that there are conflicting instructions to ARIN staff. TM stated she had skimmed the review and noted that, but there had not been enough time yet for her to address it. She stated that staff’s suggestions were good and she would address it. She thanked MM for his comment, and requested that if he had any further thoughts on the review to please forward them to her.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-National Networks

KB stated that the staff and legal review had been received today. He had one concern on comments that staff had, and he asked RJ to set a conference call to see if it was workable within the policy. KB also acknowledged the September deadline.

RJ stated that a call was welcome and would be available either later today or tomorrow at KB’s convenience. KB stated that the staff and legal review had brought up a critical issue that would have derailed the policy if it had been moved to Recommended Draft Policy status. He was happy that it was caught at this time. He stated that he intended to present the policy text as a Draft Policy at ARIN 36. KB noted that policies 2015-5 and -6 had similarities and differences to be discussed closely together; and, a new policy had been submitted recently that proposed to remove ’needs’ altogether, which will also be discussed.

Discussion ensued on the order in which the referenced draft policies would be discussed on the ARIN 36 agenda, and it was decided that the AC would continue to discuss this on their mailing list. The President requested that if the AC would like to make changes to the agenda, to please be mindful of timelines and to do it as soon as possible. The AC Chair agreed, stating that they would have an answer by early next week.

RS left at this time (4:25 pm EDT).

DH stated that he had read the staff and legal review and asked KB for the basis of his concern regarding the critical issue KB had found. KB stated that the in the review staff states that ARIN will count out of region use toward a request, but will not allow an organization to use it out of region. He asked if there were a simple way of directing it as a fix, or if he should ask the author if it was an issue, as he believed it was an issue.

DH replied that he believed it was recursive: there is no longer an IPv4 pool, so the transfer process and policy says it will not consider where it is used. KB explained that that was why he needed clarification to understand the review.

SL stated that his understanding of staff feedback is that the distinction is that if one requests a block in Europe, they will not receive it. If one stated they need the block to use in region, and they have blocks that are being used elsewhere, they can receive the space for their needs in region. If they then use the space elsewhere and come back for more, staff will not be looking into that. The clarification is good, if needed.

The Chair stated asked the AC to read the review, as KB is setting the teleconference with RJ to discuss this tomorrow. SL asked to be included on the call and KB agreed.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified Requirements for Demonstrated Need for IPv4 Transfers

Previously discussed.

11. ARIN-Prop-222: Reassignment Records for IPv4 End-Users

Previously discussed.

12. Update on Services Working Group (SWG) discussion

KB provided an update to the AC, stating that shortly after the AC’s July meeting there was a conference call with staff took place. The result of which was a solid way of making a proposal to the ARIN Board for this working group. KB submitted a draft of the proposal to the President and AC Chair for their review.

KB explained that the premise was for the SWG to be set up as ’nom com-type’ of group structurally, but that the SWG would be a permanent group. The SWG would handle requests related to ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process’s technical requests outside of the AC’s duties. It would be made up of knowledgeable technical players that would review the request and make non-binding recommendations. A report would be made available to community who would then make the decision on how to proceed. The SWG would fundamentally allow technical items to be pushed forward that are not presently being discussed. They would be an active group that would produce timely reports and post them to community for their response. KB stated that he would forward the beta draft of the proposal to the AC for comments next week; and, that the goal was to submit the proposal to ARIN Board for their approval.

The President asked KB if the alpha draft, that the President and AC Chair had received, was provided to the AC for their review and comments. KB explained that he would prefer the alpha draft be reviewed first by the short round of people who participated on the initial conference call to ensure that he did not overlook any items. He would then embellish it and post it to AC’s list next week. The President stated he would send his comments to KB by close of business the following day.

13. Any Other Business

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

14. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:36 p.m. EDT. CT moved to adjourn, seconded by JS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.