Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 August 2016 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

• Dan Alexander, Chair (DA)
• Kevin Blumberg, Vice Chair (KB)
• 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)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• John Springer (JS)
• Chris Tacit (CT)

Scribe:

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
• John Curran (President), President & CEO
• Nate Davis (ND), COO
• Susan Hamlin (SH), Dir. Communications & Member Services
• Sean Hopkins (SHo), Policy Analyst
• Richard Jimmerson (RJ), CIO

ARIN General Counsel

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Absent:

• Cathy Aronson

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for comments. KB requested a discussion on the length of AC teleconferences. The Chair agreed and added it to the agenda under ‘Any Other Business’.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 21 July 2016, as written.”

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

The motion carried with no objections.

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

CT stated that no further actions were pending before presenting this policy at the ARIN 38 Public Policy Meeting (PPM) in October. At the last AC meeting, it was agreed to post the policy text to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). CT stated that no comments had been received since posting the policy text to PPML. He believed it was ready for presenting at ARIN 38.

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

MM stated that he had posted comments to the AC’s list pointing out that there were three draft polices currently that were attempting to do generally the same thing with regard to transfers and need assessments. He and RS, the AC policy shepherds, agreed that it would be beneficial to consolidate the three texts into one, with a coherent approach. MM had sent these thoughts to the AC’s list. The Chair asked for clarity if that meant merging this draft policy with the other two draft policies. MM replied that was correct.

It was acknowledged that RS was having technical difficulties responding, but could hear the teleconference.

MM stated that the other two policies were 2016-5 and 2016-3. The Chair asked if the shepherds of those drafts found this idea a workable solution or should the drafts remain as separate draft policies?

KB stated he was against the idea of consolidating the drafts together. He stated that this draft policy dealt with transfers in a much stronger way. He believed that while all three drafts spoke to the matter of transfers, each draft approached the issue in a different way. KB believed that the community needed to look at them and discuss them separately. He stated that 2015-7 would radically change the policy more than the other two draft policies would. He could not, as a shepherd of 2016-5, merge this draft policy into it, as it would radically change 2016-5. He suggested that if there were too many draft policies, and this is not the best proposal to address the issues, should the AC look at abandoning it, or perhaps, look at moving to recommended draft status?

MM stated that maybe ‘merging’ the drafts was not the right way to describe it. He agreed with KB that there are three to four proposals dealing with same topic. It was difficult to present a coherent approach to the community; and have the community understand what exactly was being proposed. He suggested the AC try to consolidate the approach of the problem of needs assessments. He believed the approach of Officer Attestation was where the matter would end up. The other draft policies are less direct and are tweaking issues that, in a few months, would be irrelevant. He believed the AC needed to think of a method of going one by one with the drafts, and decide which to prioritize.

RS had rejoined the call fully, and agreed with MM. He pointed out that the AC had tried to move it forward at their last meeting and it failed to gain consensus to do so.

OD stated that he was opposed to consolidating the drafts. He believed the best approach was to present them at the ARIN 38 PPM, and see which one(s) the community preferred. He stated that more feedback needed to be obtained, and then the AC could craft a proposal or edit what existed, based on the community’s feedback. He did not agree with MM on his thought regarding Officer Attestation. OD believed that the community would prefer some limits and needs tests for larger blocks. He believed more feedback was needed on this matter.

JS acknowledged the discomfort with omnibus proposals, and it sounded as if consolidating the drafts would create one. Additionally, he believed that consolidating them seemed an expected approach. He was not in favor of wading through each one and merging them. He believed the community needed to discuss them before the AC move them forward in any way.

The Chair acknowledged confusion surrounding the draft texts. He pointed out that at the last AC meeting a chart of the proposals was suggested, pointing out the differences between them. This would be presented at ARIN 38. AP stated that she had started to create the chart to compare and contrast each draft policy and how they would play out in different scenarios. She believed it helpful to show how much entities would receive (small end-user, medium end-user, large ISPs, etc.); and, use the main service types impacted with examples of how they will be affected. AP agreed with OD, in that the AC would not be ready to do anything until the drafts could gain community feedback.

KB asked if they negatively impacted anyone at all comparative to existing policy, or is this a relaxation of policy? In his reading, he believed it to be a relaxing of the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). He believe that was the big question: Does the AC see anything that would be more difficult, or allow one to not receive as much or be denied resources, versus what exists today? He believed that this needed to be confirmed; and, show that to the community in these drafts.

The Chair pointed out that this draft policy has been to two PPMs; and, the AC was stalled at this point. There was a good sense that the AC did not want to consolidate them. He noted that this draft policy would be presented with the other similar draft policies, however, if there is no consensus at the PPM, it may need to be abandoned.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy

AD stated there was no update at this time, and it was ready for presentation at ARIN 38 for community discussion.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-2: Change Timeframes for All IPv4 Requests to 24 Months

TM stated that the staff and legal review was received with suggestions for documentation and tool updates. There were no ‘red flags’ in the review. She stated she would recirculate the draft on the PPML for community support in order to move the draft to recommended draft status at the next AC meeting in September.

OD stated that he would like to see the AC get out of the habit of waiting to for a PPM to move draft policies to recommended status. TM stated she would look to see if more support had been received on the PPML, as she had only noted about three people commenting in support of the draft.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers

DH stated that there was a large part of him that wanted to abandon this draft policy. He believed there were superior solutions that would solve the same problem, but had not discussed them with the co-shepherd. He noted that there was no rush. There was no update at this time, and the draft would be presented at ARIN 38 for community discussion.

KB stated that at this point the text is sitting at /12 or /16 with someone deciding which that was going to turn out to be. He supposed it would be the shepherds’ decision. He asked if it would not be more prudent to present the draft policy text to ARIN 38 with one of the two sizes set, rather than the discussion focusing on the sizes? Would that help the policy? DH stated that the authors asked specifically to keep the sizes open and the let community discuss the matter. The number of overwhelming majority fits into /16 or less; but the vast majority of space sits under a /12 or less. Ignoring all policy changes, and no needs assessment, is it the most number of people or most number of space. DH stated that, as the shepherds, he and OD would set it as a /16.

SL stated that, as the author, it was important to get community feedback on the sizes. He was leaning toward a /16 for the PPM, as it may move the policy forward. He noted that if we suggest two sizes, it may not move forward. If the consensus on this call was a /16, he would be agreeable to that for advancement for the community.

OD stated he too was in favor of a /16 set size, and presenting the draft policy at the PPM as such. He believed that the lack of community response on the PPML was a clear indication that no one cares. He believed that a /12 would open things up too far; and, a /16 may gain more support.

The Chair noted that the AC’s WebEx chat, during this teleconference, indicated a fair amount of support for a /16. He asked the shepherds that, if they agreed, would they forward this information to the PPML. The shepherds agreed. DH stated he would post the information. OD thanked him.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for New Entrants

JS stated that he wanted to make a motion, but others wanted to speak in advance of him doing so. The Chair stated that from reading comments on the AC’s list, the staff and legal review indicated a text clean-up be done in regard to the reference made to RFC 2050. He asked if this required a text edit. JS responded affirmatively and noted that the text edit had been made on the version that was posted on the AC’s Wiki. JS stated that pursuant to the President’s comments with regard to the staff and legal reviews, edits can be made in real-time or left alone. JS stated that his own interpretation of that was that the reference to RFC 2050 was commentary and not operative, as it had no operational effect. He was prepared to continue with the staff and legal review comments. JS noted that other comments in the review had to do with the fact that staff would comment on ambiguities with regard to ISPs and proceed in a certain manner on who is an ISP and who is not. The ISP definition would be maintained as it is. The staff and legal review noted doing something about it, but not in regard as a deficiency in the policy proposal.

KB asked the President about updating the staff and legal review in real-time. Did staff feel there was an issue with the removal of text, and would the staff and legal review would be updated promptly? The President stated affirmatively that staff would redistribute the review right away if needed. JS asked if the review would be any different. The President stated that the corresponding reference to RFC 2050 would be removed from the updated staff and legal review, but that it was not required to be updated. The latest version would be preferred, but it was not a hard requirement.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for New Entrants’ for adoption, as amended.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated for clarity that since the draft has been amended, he would like to see the staff and legal review revised as a formality, subsequently.

KB supported the motion as it was important having this policy in post IPv4 run-out for organizations that could not previously obtain space.

The President stated for clarity with regard to the staff and legal being revised, that the AC was free to change text and move the policy forward, and that the staff and legal would be updated within the next 48 hours. The AC was not required to wait on that to consider moving this draft to recommended status. The Chair clarified with JS that the text was revised and was on the AC’s Wiki. JS replied that was correct.

The Chair called the vote.

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

The Chair asked JS to craft a statement for SHo to post on the web. JS agreed and asked if leaving out comments about ISP’s, as it did not change the vote, would be acceptable. It was the sense of the Chair and AC that would be acceptable.

The Chair requested a revised staff and legal review on Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for New Entrants. The President stated he would make sure that the review was revised.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy

KB stated that there was a teleconference conducted earlier this month and community concerns were carefully reviewed. Minor edits were made for clarity and were sent to the AC’s list yesterday. So far, there no comments had been received. KB requested a staff and legal review on the draft text. The Chair requested a staff and legal review, and the President stated it would see that staff conducted a review. KB stated that once the AC received the staff and legal review, they would be able to determine the direction of the draft text for the AC’s next teleconference in September.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM

DF stated that this draft has been discussed and he requested a staff and legal review. He noted that depending on the outcome of the review, and further discussions, the AC may be able to move the text to recommended draft status during the AC’s next meeting in September.

KB stated that he was awaiting the review, but having researched the matter of community networks further, he had concerns in that the policy did more than just change the HD ratio. He noted that the draft was more about community networks. He pointed out that the comments at the bottom of the proposal, and most of the changes, referred to that aspect. If the policy was to remove HD ratio, one can do that without changing community networks. He pointed out that this approach has never been used. He wanted to get it right rather than get it done, especially if it was a policy about cleaning up HD ratio. He noted that it was not time sensitive.

OD stated that if it indeed was about removing HD ratio, he was in favor of removing community networks language from the draft text. He had tried to clean up the text with the least change possible, but if there was less of a change to community networks, he was open to better language.

KB suggested taking the discussion offline. He stated he had a good idea about the matter, but would like to work with the shepherd. He believed there was a way to eliminate HD ratio without touching community networks.

DF stated suggested leaving HD ratio in and, the way it was written, it did not need definitions. He asked the President if staff could look into this and see if they can make it work - remove the definition but leave the wording in, would it still work? DF wanted the staff’s opinion. The President believed that to refer to HD ratio with no definition would be bad policy. He stated that if the AC had a particular interpretation, staff needed to know it. DF acknowledged.

12. Review Upcoming Public Policy Meeting (PPM) Timelines

The Chair advised the AC that there were three recommended draft policies that would be presented at ARIN 38 in October. The next AC meeting would be held on 15 September; and, per the Policy Development Process (PDP), the deadline freeze for making edits to any Recommended Draft Policies would be on 20 September.

Additionally, there were other draft policies that were subject to the deadline freeze, should they be moved to recommended draft policy status at the next AC teleconference. They were: 2015-7, 2016-2, and 2016-4.

The Chair noted that any other draft policies that needed a staff and legal review should have a request for such by 23 August, given the Labor Day holiday in early September, and the need for time to review the results before the next AC teleconference on 15 September.

13. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

Length of AC teleconferences

KB believed it would be appropriate to set the AC teleconferences from 60 to 90 minutes. He stated that lately the AC had been conducting their meetings over 60 minutes; and, he did not want to rush through the meetings. He believed that there were more benefits to 90 minutes, in that more time would be blocked on AC member’s calendars, and there would be no hard stop at 60 minutes. He suggested beginning this on the next teleconference in September as a prelude ARIN 38 in October. KB acknowledged that the AC did not have to take the full 90 minutes to conduct business, but having it blocked would be beneficial if needed.

The Chair clarified that the AC did not have a hard stop at 60 minutes. It was a key timeframe to discuss the business at hand. He asked the AC if they agreed with extending the timeframe to 90 minutes, noting that it did not mean they needed to use all of that time to conduct business if it was not needed. JS agreed.

KB explained it was about the AC being able to realize that the teleconference not only for 60 minutes – that it could go longer, and the AC would be accepting of that fact. JS pointed out that the AC has gone over 60 minutes, and that sometimes people just need to leave the call due to conflicts. JS did support KB’s idea.

The Chair asked the AC to discuss the matter on their mailing list. He noted that the AC’s meetings have run long, and that the Council members were flexible.

RS stated that he, coincidentally, needed to leave the call at this time (5:02 p.m.).

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

14. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:02 PM EDT. JS moved to adjourn, seconded by OD. The meeting adjourned with no objections.