Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 22 January 2016 [Archived]

Seattle, WA

Advisory Council Attendees:

• Dan Alexander, Chair (DA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Kevin Blumberg, Vice Chair (KB)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• David Huberman (DH)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Tina Morris (TM)
• Amy Potter (AP)
• Leif Sawyer (LS)
• Robert Seastrom (RS) via teleconference
• John Springer (JS)
• Chris Tacit (CT)

Scribe:

• Einar Bohlin

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Einar Bohlin, Sr. Policy Analyst
• Nate Davis, COO
• Leslie Nobile, Sr. Director, Global Registry Knowledge

Observer

• Paul Andersen, Vice Chair, ARIN Board of Trustees
• Aaron Hughes, ARIN Board of Trustees

Regrets

• Milton Mueller, Steve Ryan (General Counsel)

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:17 p.m. PST. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed newly elected AC member, Amy Potter; and, he welcomed the members of the ARIN Board in attendance, as invited guests.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the Agenda with the AC and called for any comments. There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 17 December 2015, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

CA stated that revised text was being discussed on the list, and that she would be producing slides for the ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC) to be held in February in during NANOG 66 in San Diego.

DH raised two issues: 1) With regard to the placement of the text in Section 8, he noted that there had been discussion regarding simplification of the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), and found that that this text was a large block of text; 2) He asked if the AC members believed that this was a sound policy.

AD suggested putting the text on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). CT stated that the intent was to present this at the PPC. The definition of “control” can be moved to the definition section. He noted that community feedback was needed and that there would be slides to show the proposed changes. DA stated that the new text needed to post to the PPML so that the community would not be blindsided.

KB asked if the change addressed a community concern. Is there support to make such a strong insertion to the NRPM? He pointed out that the authors were two AC members; and it would not be desirable for the authors to petition.

CA did not believe that consensus could be gained on the original text. The text was changed based on the community’s feedback. She believed that if consensus could not be gained on the new text, it should be abandoned. TM noted that the AC controls the text.

OD asked for the text to be updated on AC’s list and wiki. He believed it was fine for AC authors to petition when they needed. AC members are still part of the community and are allowed to petition.

DF agreed with moving the definitions and garnering more community discussion.

CT stated that, with regard to the text being balanced, the original text could not gain consensus. He noted that the AC was trying to shore up any scrutiny before transfer to another region, and that the policy does not apply after transfer to another region. Therefore, the AC created some rules to try to ensure legitimacy among the various entities.

The President noted that while the Policy Development Process (PDP) provides that ARIN Board and staff cannot not participate in petition, AC members may participate.

DH noted there are three principles to meet and, while there is some support, the other principles have not been met. DF wanted to know what the community thought regarding the principles.

RS responded to the President and to OD, stating that there is a difference between what is allowed and what is good form. For example, if he (RS) were to petition a policy, he would seek out someone who might petition it, and if no one agreed, he could be wrong to have undertaken a petition.

CT stated he would send the text to staff with the definition moved, and create slides. He stated that he would present the policy at the PPC.

KB pointed out that the timeframe to present each policy will be between 10 and 20 minutes.

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

DF stated he would post the text to the PPML. He noted that a staff and legal review was conducted in August on the previous text, and that the proposed changes are not substantial.

KB asked if there were any staff concerns in the review and would the revised text address those concerns. DF stated that staff had pointed out some additional changes that could be made in the draft policy such as references to RFP 2050. DF noted that at ARIN 36 the sense of the room was to not address those extra issues.

The Chair noted that this policy would not be being presented at the upcoming PPC. OD suggested a change to the policy title, changing “30-day” to “Immediate”.

DF indicated that by mid-next week, and considering OD’s suggestion, his intent was: to post the text to the PPML; request staff and legal review; and, at the AC’s next scheduled meeting, move this Draft Policy to ‘Recommended Draft Policy’ status to be presented at ARIN 37.

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

TM stated that this would be presented at the upcoming PPC and would prepare slides to present it. JS noted that policy would be eligible for last call after the PPC.

KB noted that the ARIN PPC would be held in the morning on Tuesday, 09 February.

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

KB stated that the AC and the policy shepherds were holding this policy, pending the disposition of Recommended Draft Policy 2015-5. He explained that 2015-6 is a duplicative, back-up proposal for 2015-5, and that 2015-5 appears to have more support. The AC has been consistently explaining to the community why they have not been moving 2015-6 forward.

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

RS stated that he would create slides for the upcoming PPC, and that he would be attending the PPC.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating Needs-Based Evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 Transfers of IPv4 Netblock

LS stated that this policy was a contentious omnibus proposal. It does three things: eliminates the needs basis requirement for transfers; cleans up the registry; and, addresses the issue of reclamation. The authors had intended to work on the text, but we have not heard from them. LS stated that he was considering requesting a staff and legal assessment.

AD asked if this policy should be revised and moved forward. LS suggested splitting the text into separate proposals. KB asked, with regarding the staff and legal review, if the text is rough was splitting it worth doing at this time? SL agreed that the text was not ready for a staff and legal review - especially with regard to removing the needs requirement. He believed that the reclamation text be advanced on it’s own. OD believed that there was nothing salvageable in the draft but there was potential for a new proposal to look at the threat of reclamation.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating Needs-Based Evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 Transfers of IPv4 Netblocks’.”

The Chair called for discussion. JS noted that while this policy may be fair and sound, there was no community support. SL preferred to foster community feedback first, but stated he was in support of the motion.

DH did not agree with JS with regard to there being no support. He believed that there was strong support at ARIN 36, per the meeting’s transcript.

The Chair stated that he was inclined to have something in place before abandoning - that is, a proposal to address what needed to be fixed.

KB noted that there was a valid problem statement and perhaps invalid policy text, but we should try to wordsmith it to address the problem.

JS asked SL what he believed needed to happen between now and February. SL suggested reaching out to the author, if they did not respond, then the AC should abandon the policy. SL also suggested the AC craft a proposal for reclamation, or draft new text to address the problem statement.

OD agreed that there had been support to remove the reclamation threat during ARIN 36. He did not believe that there was support for the remainder of the draft policy and, in fact, there was much opposition. DH stated that he perceived it the AC was not working hard enough and urged the members to do the work.

The Chair called for roll call vote.

The motion to abandon failed with 12 against, and two in favor (OD JS).

The Chair asked LS to post an update to the PPML. LS indicated he would do so. He stated that the majority of the draft referenced removing the needs basis, and that would be the focus of the revisions.

AD suggested submitting a new proposal to address the reclamation threat. LS agreed.

10. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove Transfer Language Which Only Applied Pre-Exhaustion of v4 Pool

RS noted that this policy would be presented at the upcoming PPC. The Chair noted it would be eligible for last call after the PPC. RS stated that he would ask MM for slides and that he (RS) would present the policy at the PPC.

11. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

Farewell to Heather Schiller.

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

“The ARIN Advisory expresses its enormous appreciation to Heather Schiller for many years of service to the Council, and to the ARIN community.”

The motion carried by acclimation.

12. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 3:08 p.m. PST. DH moved to adjourn, seconded by KB. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.