Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 March 2016 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

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

Scribe:

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
• Einar Bohlin (EB), Sr. Policy Analyst
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis, COO
• Susan Hamlin (SH), Dir. Communications & Member Services
• Richard Jimmerson, CIO & Acting Director, Registration Services

ARIN General Counsel

• Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EST. The presence of a quorum was noted. It was noted that MM would be delayed to the teleconference.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council. He called for any comments, noting the items to be discussed under Any Other Business. There were no other items.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 18 February 2016, 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 she had sent an updated version of the draft to the AC, with recent discussions on their list. She stated that she did not believe the draft should be moved forward at this time. CA asked for Counsel’s thoughts on the affect the two new definitions may have on the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM).

Counsel asked the AC Council to consider if it was sufficient that a corporate parent within the ARIN region owned the subsidiary. He believed that was the core intention, but indicated that if it is a more complex issue that a definition for the issue could be readily achieved.

CT stated that it was more complex – there were corporate organizations both foreign and domestic that may both be subsidiaries of a common parent, but not of each other. He added that, in other countries, things need to be set up where the ownership is not majority controlled by a North American parent company, but control does exist. His concern was that focusing on the owned subsidiary of a North American corporation is only one part of the problem. He did not want to narrow to the owned subsidiary case only.

KB stated that there had been issues with the RSA and he was hesitant to do anything in a more legal sense to the draft, rather than have it be a document of explanation of how things are done. He noted that text was added in because a few people had issues about gaming the policy; and, that there had not been an outpouring of concern, nor of support.

The Chair stated that DH had sent an email that clarified these comments. The Chair asked if the policy shepherds wanted to continue revising the draft and then send it to the AC’s list. CA stated she was in favor doing so. CT stated he would circulate further text for review. CA agreed.

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

DF stated this RDP was ready to be presented at ARIN 37 to the community. He asked if there were any questions. There were no comments.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out-of-Region Use’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair asked if there had been any objections voiced with regard to this policy. TM noted one concern was raised at the last Public Policy Consultation (PPC) to show things that are represented as in-region use and the options available. She pointed out that they had a discussion during that PPC. By the end of it, that person agreed to the language as written. TM noted there had been nothing but support since the PPC. The PPML has been silent. TM pointed out that it has been noted that silence did not mean ’ a lack of support’. It meant that they have nothing further to say, and have agreed to the language as written.

DH had to leave the call temporarily, but stated that he was in favor of the motion, and that he voted ‘aye’ with regard to the motion on the table. He left the call at 4:22 pm EDT.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, via roll call vote.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-National Networks.”

The Chair called for discussion. KB stated that this draft had been on hold, until 2015-5 was finalized. He noted that the issue has been addressed in 2015-5 and, at this point, it was moot.

OD stated that he supported the motion, but wondered if the AC should we wait until the Board ratified 2015-5. KB stated he had thought the same, but pointed out that if it is remanded to the AC from the Board, whatever the changes need to be made will be made. He stated that the community supported this policy, and is behind it. OD acknowledged KB’s comments. SL stated that he agreed with KB and, as the author, supported the motion.

DH rejoined the call at this time (4:27 pm EDT).

DF stated that by abandoning this draft, it shows the Board that the AC is in full support of 2015-5. He believed that 2015-6 was no longer needed.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, via roll call vote.

MM joined the call at this time (4:29 p.m. EDT).

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

RS stated he believed this draft could be advance to recommended draft policy status.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified Requirements for Demonstrated Need for IPv4 Transfers’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. RS withdrew the motion, stating he had not thought it through enough. He explained that he had not been up to date on the most recent discussions on the AC’s list.

SL stated he was uncertain that the author’s suggestion was one that the AC wanted to entertain or not with regard to adding back in requirements of 80% use of total space, and 50% of each aggregate block. He preferred that the AC have more discussion on the matter.

OD stated that he supported the author’s position. KB stated that the author had useful information, but KB was unsure that the community, as a whole, agreed to it. KB noted he supported the motion when made. He noted that if there was support for the policy, the AC could revise the text at a later time if needed. He noted that there had been no strong objections to the draft as written. He asked if the staff and legal review had been completed.

RS stated the review had been completed, and there had been no technical reasons not to advance the draft to RDP status and present it at ARIN 37. The Chair noted that the majority of opposition pertained to a very small amount of people.

RS explained that when he made the motion, there had been a long pause before KB seconded it. He believed that between the discussion with SL and the author, and the fact that no one was at the ready to second the motion, it made him reconsider the fact that he made the motion.

SL stated that nothing has happened – we have a small minority of opposition but they may be less opposed with a revised proposal. He did not believe anything was lost by presenting as-is at ARIN 37. He noted that revisions could be made later. He pointed out that if revisions were made at this time, the draft would not be able to be presented in time at ARIN 37. OD commented that he proposed the same argument with 2015-5 and was shot down on lack of proof of community support with more support and less opposition than on this proposal. He did not believe SL had a valid argument.

The President suggested that if the AC wanted to advance a draft to RDP status, it would be helpful to write a statement of conformance with regard to the Policy Development Process (PDP) requirements. This would ensure the policy met the requirements, and lead to a more thoughtful outcome. The President recommended the AC draft such a statement and share it with the Council to ensure that they were in agreement.

The Chair agreed. To advance the draft to RDP status and have it likely require changes later, meant that it was not ready. RS agreed. DF stated he did not support advancing the draft at this time and wanted to make sure it was ready before moving it forward.

The question of floor counts was raised. EB stated that floor counts could be found on the AC’s Wiki. He stated that floor counts were not conducted for 2015-7 at either ARIN 36 or the recent PPC. The Chair explained this was because it was only a draft.

OD stated that given this lack of data the Council had no way to know if the draft had adequate community support to advance this draft to RDP status. He suggested that the community be polled at ARIN 37 and the draft could be advanced after the meeting, if supported. The Chair thanked OD for his suggestion.

The Chair stated this policy would be presented as-is, as a draft, to ARIN 37 to receive the community’s feedback.

JS asked if this was an architecture problem, without polls, there is no evidence of community support or non-support. The Chair stated that that topic could be discussed on the AC’s list.

The President stated that every draft policy is presented at a Public Policy Meeting and, if the AC wished, they could poll the room on any of these policies. He explained that if more work needed to be done, or if the policy was highly contentious, it customarily is not polled. However, there is nothing prohibiting the AC from taking a poll. In many cases, the policies presented will be revised, and for them the AC does not customarily conduct a poll. He stated that when the AC has clear text, they could poll the community either at a PPM or a PPC.

The Chair thanked the President for his comments.

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

LS stated that based on lack of community support, he would move to abandon this draft. He noted it failed fair and impartiality tests with the community.

It was moved by LS, and seconded by OD, 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. LS stated that needs based language was removed, and the text is unfair because large and small organizations do not have similar financial strength. DH asked if the intention was that the AC abandon all of the text? LS explained that a portion of the text was removed to be submitted as a new policy proposal dealing with the language in Section 8.2 regarding reclamation. AD stated he had submitted the language. DH acknowledged.

MM stated that he had an issue with the idea that price rationing of resources was not fair and impartial resource allocation. He asked LS if LS meant that when one pays for things, it is unfair? LS replied he did not mean that. He stated it was unfair because the cost equivalency is not the same for the scarce resource.

SL noted that concern has been expressed on the PPML, that removing some needs test type of elements of the policy would be less fair because people without any need for resources could acquire them for speculating, etc. We are abandoning this due to lack of community support. There is a perception of unfairness and impartiality. The balance doesn’t meet the fair and impartial test in the minds of the community.

MM stated that he would never accept the AC’s assessment of ‘if you don’t have needs assessment you are being unfair’. He stated he would dissent against a statement that frames it such. He suggested stating that the policy did not have proper community support. The other argument is just a perception and it was incorrect. JS agreed and thanked MM for the comment. JS stated he did not believe the assertion of unfairness, and that he did not believe it was very persuasive. He noted it was clear that there was a mix of support and of non-support; and, that there may be grounds for abandoning the draft.

The Chair asked JS that if the AC agreed that the draft lacked support and they moved to abandon it, was the JS opposed to the motion or was he favor of it? JS stated he would oppose the motion if it included abandonment for being unfair.

The President stated, for clarity, that the motion was to abandon the draft. He acknowledged that this discussion was important, but pointed out that the AC has to draft a statement as to why they were abandoning the draft; and, to make it clear that it was for lack of community support if that was the reason. He advised the AC that there was nothing wrong with identifying additional perceptions or comments raised by the community, but the AC should not make them an AC position unless actually agreed upon by the Council.

SL read the proposed abandonment statement to the AC. He asked if the language referring to the draft failing the fair and impartial test be removed. The Chair stated that that has been the bulk of this discussion, but this is a straightforward motion for abandonment. If it carries, then the policy shepherds will work with the AC on the statement to the community. The Chair wanted to be sure that the AC was clear in why or why not they were abandoning the proposal. The statement was irrelevant for the motion, as the statement language could be revised before posting to the PPML.

CA stated she needed to leave the meeting at this time (5:00 pm EDT).

OD stated that he supported removing the fairness portion of the abandonment text.

The Chair asked LS if it may or not be an issue of fairness but rather a lack of adequate support? LS stated there had indeed been a lack of adequate support since February, when it was posted to the PPML.

The Chair stated that, at this point, the opinions have been articulated, but they did not change the motion. The Chair called for a roll call vote.

The motion to abandon failed with 9 against (DA, KB, DH, TM, MM, AP, RS, JS, CT), and 5 in favor (OD, AD, DF, SL, LS), via roll call vote.

The Chair stated that this draft policy would be presented at ARIN 37. He asked LS if he would present it, and focus on finding support to continue working on it. He noted that they could poll the room to get statistical feedback from the community. LS agreed.

SL stated, as co-shepherd, that he would like to request to those AC members who voted against abandonment, to please contribute suggestions on how to rescue this draft policy – especially with regard to fairness and unfairness to large and small organizations. He asked them to please comment on the PPML or on the AC’s list. The Chair thanked SL for his comment.

10. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove Transfer Language Which Only Applied Pre-Exhaustion of IPv4 Pool

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove Transfer Language Which Only Applied Pre-Exhaustion of v4 Pool’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair asked if there had been any feedback during last call either for or against this RDP. MM stated that there had been no comments made.

The motion carried with 14 in favor via roll call vote.

11. ARIN-Prop-226: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-226: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. AP stated that the proposal met all the proposal criteria. She noted that there had not been a lot of feedback on the AC’s list and asked if there were any objections. AD stated that he believed it to be in scope, clear, and ready for community discussion.

SL supported the motion in order to discuss the proposal with the community. DH asked if it was an emergency status issue, as OD had suggested in the past. The Chair stated that the current situation was speculation. ARIN did not have abuse of allocations. He noted that that if people acquire these blocks, there is a 12-month hold on transfers. There was no evidence of abuse at this time. The Chair stated that, in his opinion, he did not see a situation that warranted emergency status.

DF concurred with the Chair. He stated that if there were any signs of attempts to abuse transfers, staff would alert the AC or Board and take other actions. But at this time, he did not believe it was of an emergency status. He believed it should move forward on course.

The Chair pointed out that there would also be a policy experience report coming out next month.

OD agreed, but explained that this proposal closes a loophole that is open in a number of different reserve blocks - not just a block referenced in Section 4.10. If one is expanding and renumbering, and not returning /24s, there may be monitoring of the blocks per Section 8.3. He acknowledged that it has not happened. He stated that the policy calls attention to it, and the AC might want staff to block the transfer while this works it s way through the PDP. He stated that he would hate to see transfers happen after presenting this to the community by proposing to close the loophole.

KB pointed out that only the Board could produce an emergency policy. He did not believe this was the case with this proposal.

The Chair stated that there was no suggestion that an emergency policy was needed. The President stated that there were two types of emergency situations that potentially warranted Board action: 1) the suspension of a flawed policy and, 2) creation of new policy via the emergency PDP. He explained that suspension happens if staff recommends that the policy was flawed and that it would cause problems if they continued to follow the policy.

The President noted that at this time ARIN had no data to show abuse of the transfer policy for reserved resource pools. He stated he would inform the Board if these transfers started occurring and would recommend suspension of the policy for these types of resources. The AC would be engaged because if the policy were suspended, the Board would follow the PDP and thus seek a recommendation from the AC on how to proceed.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, via roll call vote.

12. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

ARIN 37 Update

The Chair stated that as ARIN 37 would be held next month, he noted to the policy shepherds to please prepare their slides sooner rather than later.

The Chair asked EB if there was anything he needed from the AC. EB stated the AC needed to consider table topics, which drafts would be presented, and other topics, etc. The Chair stated he would send a send note to the AC.

Discuss Possible Editorial Update to Section 8.2 of the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM)

The Chair stated that there had been lot of conversation and an proposal on suggested changes had been posted. He asked AD if he believed the AC agrees that enough people believe that this is an editorial update; and, that they agree with what the suggested changes are enough to request the editorial process be started by staff? AD stated that the latest version had recently been posted. He needed to find out from the AC if it needed continued work, or if it was not an editorial change.

MM left the meeting at this time (5:27 p.m. EDT).

KB stated that the changes looked great and addressed his concerns. He asked if rearranging paragraphs of the text was considered to be substantive or not? His only concern was in terms of content, but in the volume of the content that was changing.

RS agreed with KB and thought it a great question. Is it because so many words moved around that we should run it through the process, or is it an editorial change?

OD stated that the yardstick by which he measured it to be a substantive change or not was “Does it change the impact of the policy, implementation, or operations?” He stated the answer was ’no’ to all three of those criteria. He did not believe it was substantive, even though words have been moved around within the text. If the changes did not change the policy’s meaning, then they were editorial.

JS agreed stated he believed the AC was capable of determining criteria along the lines of OD’s comments. We can tell if it retains form and function, and the volume of words was of lesser importance.

The Chair asked JS if he meant that the changes pass as an editorial change. JS answered yes. SL agreed, stating that many were asking the question, but no one has stated that the changes were not editorial. The Chair stated that SL made a valid point – no one has objected to saying the changes were editorial in nature.

As a point of order, the COO stated that the President apologized, indicating that he needed to leave the teleconference at this time (5:33 p.m. EDT). Counsel also left at this time. The Chair acknowledged.

The Chair stated that there was no motion needed on this matter at this time. He stated that the AC needed to draft a note to the President that the AC would like staff to initialize the editorial process with the AC’s suggestions.

He asked the AC for any final objections to this matter being an editorial change or to the process. There were no comments.

The Chair stated he would send a note to the President when drafted.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:34 p.m. EDT. RS moved to adjourn, seconded by OD. The meeting adjourned with no objections.