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

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees

• Dan Alexander, Chair (DA)
• Tina Morris, Vice Chair (TM)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• David Huberman (DH)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• 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
• Sean Hopkins, (SH) Policy Analyst
• John Sweeting (JSw), Senior Dir., Registration Services

ARIN General Counsel

• Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.

Observers (2017 AC members-elect)

• Alyssa Moore (AM)
• Joe Provo (JP)
• Alison Wood (AW)
• Chris Woodfield (CW)

Regrets

• Cathy Aronson, Owen Delong

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. EST. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed the 2017 AC members elected in October to the AC, as observers to the call.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. The Chair noted that he had added an item to Any Other Business regarding discussing holding an ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC). He also noted that he had received a note from DH with regard to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) discussion about policy language. He asked DH if he wanted to add a discussion about it to any other business. DH believed it would be beneficial to do so. The Chair agreed.

JS noted that some AC members may have to leave this teleconference early. He suggested moving Item 7 to the end of the agenda, so that quorum would not potentially be lost for possible final action on the recommended draft policies, noting that 10 votes were needed to successfully advance them. The Chair agreed.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. 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)

The Chair noted that neither of the policy shepherds were in attendance. The Chair stated that, per the PPML, there were no comments posted during the last call period. The Chair called for comments from the Council. DF confirmed that no further comments had been posted.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients)’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that the policy was well supported during ARIN 38, and that there were no objections during the last call period. He believed the modification was a reasonable one to make and uncontroversial. JS noted that there had been excellent support at ARIN 38, and he believed it to be the best discussion on a policy in a long time. The Chair asked if there were any clarifications for the Board, should this policy be advanced to them for adoption. There were no clarifications.

The motion carried with all in favor (11) via roll call vote.

5. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy

It was moved by AD, and seconded by SL, that

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption”

The Chair called for discussion. He noted that he had seen only one post to the PPML during the last call period. AD agreed and stated that there were no negative comments during the last call period. The Chair asked if there were any clarifications for the Board, should this policy be advanced to them for adoption. AD stated that this policy should be merged into 2016-5, assuming it was also adopted. The Chair stated that the AC would work on statements for the Board. AD agreed.

The motion carried with all in favor (11) via roll call vote.

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

TM noted one statement of support on the PPML, and that this policy was supported during the ARIN 38 Public Policy Meeting (PPM).

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-2: Change Timeframes for IPv4 Requests to 24 Months’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair asked if this policy had any clarifications needed to be pointed out to the Board. TM stated that there were no clarifications. SL stated that the edits had no conflicts with the other similar policies. The Chair explained that he wanted to be very clear and careful with these proposals when advancing them to the Board, due to their similarity in content.

The motion carried with all in favor (11) via roll call vote.

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

(To be discussed at the end of the agenda, per JS’s request.)

The Chair stated that the Agenda would resume with Item 8.

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

JS stated that support was expressed during the ARIN PPM, and there were statements of support on the PPML - none of which were in opposition.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for New Entrants’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair noted that four people were in support during the last call period. He pointed out that they were not the usual people who posted to the PPML, and that he was glad to see new people posting. The Chair asked if there were any clarifications for the Board, should this policy be advanced to them for adoption. JS stated that, following ARIN 38, at the AC’s face-to-face meeting they had a procedural discussion about the final clause with regard to instruction to staff, conditional upon the passage of 2015-2. He wanted to verify with the President that the instructions to staff were clear, so that things could move ahead. The President stated they were sufficiently clear, and staff had no concerns.

The motion carried with all in favor (11) via roll call vote.

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

LS stated that there had been limited discussion on the PPML, with two in opposition and one in agreement. He noted that there had been overwhelming pro-support during the ARIN PPM, hence he was of the opinion that the motion to advance this policy was not a bad idea.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. The President explained that the most important thing during the last call period is that the AC was still comfortable with the recommended draft policy, and, that there were no new concerns or procedural issues that had arisen that had not already been considered. Last call is a ‘double check’ to ensure that the AC is still comfortable with the recommendation made when they made the draft policy into a ‘recommended’ draft policy, and not meant as a second measurement of community support. The AC should consider the question “Why did the people who said no, say no; and, does it impact our recommendation?”

SL addressed the President’s comment, stating that he believed that the two people who were opposed were OD, who had raised the same issues as he had done in the past; and, a new participant in opposition of transfers in general who raised no new issues – more about the overarching thrust of policies in general. SL stated that he supported the motion.

JS stated that the email from the person who posted to the PPML on 10/31, pointed out a grammar reversal: NRPM (Number Resource Policy Manual) was referred to as Number Policy Resource Manual, in error. This should be corrected. The remainder of his post was difficult to follow; however, it seemed to be more about objecting to transfers in general than to the policy. He also stated that OD reiterated his observations from several previous times. JS supported the motion.

The Chair asked LS and DH to correct the error. They agreed to do so.

The motion carried with 10 in favor and 1 abstention (AP), via roll call vote. AP stated she had abstained due to financial interest in the outcome.

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

DF stated that there had been two comments of additional support, and no opposition, during the last call period. Issues regarding fees were removed as the policy entered the last call period. He noted that there were no further comments on that modification.

CT joined at this time (4:40 pm EST). He apologized for his delay due to technical difficulties. The Chair acknowledged and let him know which item was currently under discussion.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair noted that this policy was similar to the rest and that all of the clarifications had been made. DF concurred, stating that there were no conflicts between this policy and any of the other policies.

The motion carried with all in favor (12) via roll call vote.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-7: Integration of Community Networks Into Existing ISP Policy

RS stated that there had been no changes to this draft since it had been on the AC’s docket. He was unaware of any comments from OD, and would touch base with him.

The Chair stated that this ended the discussion of items that had needed final action, and that the AC would now discuss Item 7.

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

DH stated that during the last call period for 2016-5, OD had expressed preference for 2016-3 to be discussed, and there had been no interest. In light of 2016-5 being moved to the Board for adoption, DH believed that the AC needed to see what the Board decided, and then dispose of this policy at a later time. He pointed out that there was no policy until Board ratification, so this policy should remain ‘on hold’.

DF stated that pieces of this policy could be extracted to create new policy, or this policy could be utilized as-is, and move it forward. There were pieces that would be supplemental to 2016-5.

DH stated that he had a problem with that, in function. He did not like the thought of staff and the community having to absorb a wholesale change to the way NRPM Sections 8.3 and 8.4 are qualified and processed, and then have to think about absorbing changes before seeing how the policy works.

DF stated that it concerned him that, in supporting and moving forward, those components would also move forward. He asked DH to please think about it carefully. DH agreed to do so.

MM left the call at this time (4:47 p.m. EST).

12. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

Discuss Need for a Public Policy Consultation (PPC) at NANOG 69 (6 - 8 February 2017, Washington, D.C.)

The Chair stated that he would not be requesting a slot for an ARIN PPC with the NANOG Program Committee, since there were only two proposals currently on the AC’s docket. He called for comments. There were no comments. He confirmed that there would be no request made for an ARIN PPC.

PPML Discussion regarding NRPM Section 8.2 Merger Policies

DH stated that Bill Herrin had asked about the final paragraph in Section 8.2. DH read the paragraph to the Council. He stated that Mr. Herrin’s question had started a lively discussion on the PPML, and noted that ARIN staff did not show up in the discussion. He stated that there was a conflict between the RSA (Registration Services Agreement) and the mandatory language in NRPM. Staff has since softened the NRPM language; however, it could still be read to interpret that it was mandatory. He asked what happened if one wanted to make a transfer and had no use, or little justification?

The President stated that there was a difference between what rights were in the RSA, and the language that was in the NRPM. They did not need to align. The policy stated that ARIN tell a customer there was a community expectation that they return or transfer unused resources. That policy language was mandated by the community. If the policy text was deleted, then ARIN would not say that to the requester. DH asked if that were not ‘a little coercive’. The President replied that it was what ARIN had been asked to do, per the community.

The Chair stated that he had sent a note to the PPML that pointed out the consultation held by the AC to clarify the language and intent. There had been no community responses to his post. He asked the Council if there was more work to do on the policy, or if the AC has clarified it enough as it stood. He asked the Council if a proposal should be created to discuss the matter.

DH stated that he wanted to discuss it and consult with staff. He suggested staff clarify what they do, the Council post it to the PPML, and the community decide what they wanted to do.

The President pointed out that if the language in NRPM Section 8.3 said one must do this or ARIN would reclaim their resource - that would be coercive and wrong; however, it did not say that. It said that ARIN will work with the party. It explicitly did not state that ARIN will take one’s resource if they did not comply.

DF stated that, as he had said in the thread, ARIN cannot force an agreement between two other parties. There is nothing to force. He believed it should ‘go away’, and that the Council should discuss it. That would be a different policy matter. The intent here is clear. ARIN was doing what the community told it to do.

AP pointed out that not everyone was paying intention to the PPML, and to keep that in mind. The Chair asked her if she believed posting to the PPML was insufficient, and that the AC had more work to do. AP stated that was what she believed.

CT noted a sufficient lack of clarity enough that it had required discussion on the PPML, within the Council, and from the President. He believed, therefore, that the AC needed to clarify the language. He stated the Council should consider it a proposal or an editorial change, but something to encourage a person and make it more clear. Many people would never look at the PPML; or, be that involved in ARIN other than dealing with their transfers. The conflict should be reduced between the RSA and the NRPM.

The Chair stated that it sounded like the Council was splitting the effort: staff could reply to the thread with clarification, but also the AC would want one or two AC members to craft a problem statement which could result in a potential change to the policy proposal.

DF concurred. He stated that he had proposed a potential clarification where transfers were voluntary, as well as the returns, but there was at least a component of the community who believed that it needed to go away. He stated that he intended to work on the matter. He believed that there was more than one issue going on.

The President agreed that there were two items at hand. He explained that staff had not stepped in because it appeared that the community discussion on PPML addressed it adequately, but the was happy to have staff send a response. He explained that if one transferred and had more resources, the language was changed to indicate that there was an expectation within the community. The President did not agree that they were in conflict. They were two different items - if the community does not want ARIN to tell people that transfers come into compliance, then that can be removed. The fact that language is asking ARIN to do something needed to be distinguished. ARIN has been following what the community wanted it to do: work with the recipient.

CT agreed that there was no problem with expectation, but he was concerned if the language used can be interpreted in a way that has a chilling effect - used as a hammer against the customer. He believed that the AC needed to look closely to see if that was the case, and then make it clear that it was an expectation but not an enforceable requirement. He stated that he would take a look at it. He did not disagree with the President in terms of relative intent.

The Chair asked DH if there was anything further he wanted to discuss. DH stated that he was satisfied with the discussion.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:05 p.m. EST. CT moved to adjourn, seconded by RS. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.