Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 16 March 2017 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees

• Dan Alexander, Chair (DA)
• Tina Morris, Vice Chair (TM)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• David Huberman (DH)
• Alyssa Moore (AM)
• Amy Potter (AP)
• Joe Provo (JP)
• Leif Sawyer (LS)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• John Springer (JS)
• Chris Tacit (CT)
• Alison Wood (AW)
• Chris Woodfield (CW)

Scribe

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff

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

ARIN General Counsel

• Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 16 February 2017, as written.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

DH stated that the staff and legal review had been done. He noted that the community was both for and against the proposal per their feedback on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). He stated the policy text is frozen per the Policy Development Process (PDP) deadlines, and that he believed the policy was ready for discussion at the ARIN 39 Public Policy Meeting (PPM) in April. The Chair thanked him for the update.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement

CT stated that the policy was ready, and that the AC is waiting for discussion at ARIN 39 before deciding on which direction to take. It will be presented as a draft policy, and CT will work on the slide presentation for the PPM.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers

JS stated that it took some cogitation, but the revisions were largely editorial. He stated that he had sent an email last night explaining the textual changes; and that, in the end, they are minor. He noted that the draft policy is technically sound, fair and impartial, and has significant support on the PPML. He proposed to move the policy to Recommended Draft Policy status.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for comments. The Chair asked that since the text was changed yesterday after the staff and legal review, were the changes minor enough to not fundamentally change the proposal, or did JS need a revised staff and legal review? JS stated that he had accepted two of the staff and legal suggestions in the review, but it was his opinion was that the changes were minor. He believed that the third suggestion was incorrect, and therefore did not make the suggested change.

Counsel stated that the staff and legal review’s comments were thoughtfully done. When staff and legal state that they believe something, the comments go through stringent review. You may not always agree, and you may want to concede a different point of view. Counsel believed that the changes were minimal to the points made, and did not believe a new staff and legal review was needed.

JS stated that in both his and author’s opinion, the intent of the proposal is that number resources not undergo an additional needs-based assessment; therefore, the suggestion made by the staff and legal review was not applicable. JS stated that the staff and legal review’s suggestion he had not followed was ‘conditional’. He read the suggestion to AC, pointing out that the intent of the proposal was not the intent of the suggestion, therefore he did not include it in the revision of the text.

The Chair asked for a summary of the other revisions. JS read through the other revisions with the Council and explained his course of action on each. AP pointed out that in the text on the AC’s Wiki and in JS’s e-mail, there was still a reference to the term ‘independently verifiable’ which needed to be removed, per the revisions made. JS stated he would clean up the text to remove it.

OD stated that he was not convinced that the conditions of the staff and legal review were not met. He stated that staff’s feedback is not ‘incorrect’, but the condition of their feedback may not be met. However, OD believed that the condition is met, and that the AC should indicate that it is not intending any needs-based review at the time of transfer.

The President asked to JS explain why he believed that resources have already been subjected to needs-assessment. JS stated it was because the resources had been allocated. The President responded that that was true, however they may have been allocated 20 years ago. He explained that ARIN performs a needs-assessment when organizations request resources. To say the resources have been through a needs-assessment already is a creative re-interpretation of normal usage of the phrase in the Number Resource Policy Manual. The question of a needs-based assessment is not a question about the history of the resource, it is regarding criteria for the current request.

RS stated that he is the author of this draft policy. He had received resources as long ago as 1989, and there was a needs-assessment performed at the time, and that it was very informal. If there was a time when there was zero needs-assessment on getting address space, to include internal sub-netting, he is unaware of it. He requested to hear the President’s response to this. Whatever needs-assessment was in place, it was justified once. Making non-ISPs and organizations that do not have tight records of their space re-justify their space is a disincentive to making the Whois database right. RS stated that this was his rationale.

The President replied that it is a distinction without a difference. The language is in the staff assessment. If Section 8.2 would not be subject to needs-assessment to process the transfer request, then please make it plain in the policy text. RS stated that he had no problem with wording the President used, although he did believe it was a slight difference.

RS stated that ‘will not be’ implies never has been and that is incorrect. He did not want to create the impression that that is the way to get resources without ever having a needs-assessment performed.

The Chair stated that the language has to be solid to move it forward. He asked for comments on motion on the table to advance the proposal.

JS stated that this addition to the text makes it substantive, and not editorial. He believed that the text will raise discussion with the community folks who were anti-needs base. He believed it is the sense of the AC that he withdraw the motion and make the textual changes as recommended. The text would be presented as a draft policy for discussion at ARIN 39.

The President stated that the staff is offering text that could be used, but only if it lines up with the intent of the policy. At one point in reading the problem statement it looked like the goal was that ARIN was not going to conduct a needs-assessment for an 8.2 merger and acquisition request. If you say that, in plain language, it makes it simpler to understand. But the intent is up to the AC. The staff and legal review is just making the text that is there clearer, if the intent is no needs-assessment for the transfer.

CW joined at this time (4:29 p.m.)

JS stated that, to be clear, originally his impression was that the author noticed that an additional needs-assessment was being performed that had already been done, and that it had an unnecessary impact on database accuracy. Therefore, he and RS were in agreement that they were eliminating this step. JS explained that now RS stated that he agrees with the proposed language, as long as it does not use the term ‘will not be’ in a way that means ’never again’.

JS stated that this attempt to make it clear was confusing. In an attempt to comply, JS stated that he would withdraw the motion; and, he would incorporate the suggestions into the text but, the additional comments here had confused him. He asked whether or not he should include the proposed text.

The Chair replied it is up to the AC whether to include the text or not. The President stated that staff has no view on the subject. He explained that if two organizations are merging, both sets of the resources have been through a needs-assessment, as that is the process for obtaining resources initially. If the resources were issued 10 years ago, for example, they are going to be assessed again at the time of the merger. If you are trying to eliminate that, you need to make that clear. It’s up to the AC with regard to how it is conveyed in the policy text.

RS stated to the President and JS, that he apologized for any confusion. He agreed with what the President had said with regard to the policy intent not requiring an additional needs-assessment at the time of transfer. He believed it captured it nicely for policy language that hopefully the AC liked.

OD stated he would like to offer a friendly amendment to motion by inserting the text “Transfers under 8.2 shall not be subject to additional needs-based review during the 8.2 transfer.” He suggested this be added to the motion on the table. He noted he was not a fan of the policy, and would vote against, but believed it was time to move it forward in the process.

JS suggested further revisions to the amendment. After discussion, the new motion read:

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers’ for adoption, inserting the following text under 8.2: ‘The Internet number resources being transferred as part of an 8.2 transfer will not be subject to an additional needs-based assessment during the 8.2 transfer’.”

The Chair called for discussion. It was the sense of the AC that the motion was acceptable as amended.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

7. ARIN-Prop-235: Clarify Generic References to “IP Addresses” in NRPM

DF stated that he would like to request that staff process this item as an editorial change. CW agreed. The Chair asked for comments.

CW recalled that OD had explained, in the AC’s last meeting, the reason for the change was to eliminate the possibly of anyone using the generic term. He asked if that needed to be stated in the proposal. The Chair explained that if the AC asks staff to do editorial change, the AC needs to be very concise, and provide the proposed language so that there is no confusion. CW stated that this is the justification for requesting the change. He was questioning the problem statement.

DF stated that the change is clear: the motivation for the change is what CW is referring to. DF also stated that he was torn on whether it is part of the editorial change or not.

The President stated that an explanation for the editorial change should be provided. It is not required from the AC, but staff looks for it for when they send it to the public for the 30-day review period – but again, it is not required.

JSw noted that there were a number of instances within Section 4 that refer to IP resources (addresses, blocks, etc.). He noted that not everything that does refers to IPv4 had been captured. He suggested that it may possibly be easier to put a qualifier in the beginning of Section 4 that stated: “This section applies only to IPv4 number resources.” He noted that changing multiple different instances could create ambiguity.

The Chair agreed that JSw’s suggestion could be possible solution. CW stated that he was happy with JSw’s suggestion.

OD stated that he and CW had been through the text very carefully, and believed that they had noted all instances where the revision would apply. He stated he would like to know what they may have missed.

The Chair asked the policy shepherds and the AC to take one more month and add the rationale to help staff. If they did not want to do so, would the one line clarification that JSw suggested work? He stated it’s the AC’s decision. He called for any objections.

DF stated he had none, but would like a sense of room on which way to go: either with overarching statement suggested by JSw, or with individual revisions. He was fine with either option.

In the interest of time, the Chair requested the AC discuss on their mailing list. All agreed.

8. ARIN-Prop-236: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers

RS and JP apologized, as shepherds of the proposal, that work had been delayed due to other conflicts.

The Chair asked if they were working on the rationale. JP stated that he and RS had not yet discussed it together or with the author. The Chair requested they provide an update at the next AC meeting. The Shepherds agreed to do so.

OD stated that he believed that by the time the AC passes this proposal text, the other RIRs will no longer have the free pool they are trying to protect.

9. ARIN-Prop-237: Clarify Slow-start for Transfers

AD stated that he has worked with author to provide a problem statement of more clarity, and that changes to text were sent last Wednesday to the AC. He believed it was ready to move forward to draft policy status.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-237: Clarify Slow-start for Transfers’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

10. ARIN-Prop-238: Removal of Community Networks

AW stated that she had spoken with the author and was comfortable with current language.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-238: Removal of Community Networks’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

11. ARIN-Prop-239: Update to NRPM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation

AP stated that she was unable to speak with author, but the shepherds were comfortable with text and comfortable with moving the proposal forward to draft policy status. She noted it would then be presented for discussion at ARIN 39.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-239: Update to NRPM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for comments. DH stated that it is his third year on the AC, and it was the first time something that’s almost word for word as another proposal has been submitted. He asked what course of action was to be taken.

The Chair explained that, in the past, the AC has received similar proposals to tackle the same issue. The AC cannot take editing rights on a proposal until it is moved to draft policy status. At that point, the AC can choose to merge the similar texts, or split them up as it sees fit. In its current state, as a proposal, the AC cannot do anything. DH thanked the Chair for the explanation.

OD stated he was not in favor of the motion because he had not gotten through the problem statement to ensure that it was clear, and needed more time to review the text. AD stated that, as a shepherd of the proposal of the almost identical one, he was hesitant to support this one. The ideas could have been shared on the PPML and, if so, the texts can be merged into each other.

CT did not believe the AC should be looking at what to do yet. He stated the AC should accept the proposal onto its docket first, and then figure out what direction to take.

JS stated he was in support of the motion.

Motion carried with 11 in favor (DA, DF, DH, AM, TM, AP, RS, LS, JS, CT, AW), and four against (OD, AD, JP, CW) via roll call.

AM noted that Draft Policy 2016-8 was the policy that was similar to this proposal. CT, as the policy shepherd for 2016-8, agreed. She asked if a chart, similar to the one AP had done in the past, that compared similar proposals would be of use in this case. The Chair stated that if the shepherds wanted to create a chart, it would be fine. AM stated that she would work with CT to develop a chart.

12. Review Timelines for the ARIN 39 Public Policy Meeting

The Chair reviewed the timelines for submission of text, stating that texts were frozen on 04 March, per PDP guidelines, as that was 30 days from the ARIN 39 PPM. He noted, however, that Draft Policy 2016-9 will make it into the discussion guide for the meeting. The Chair further noted that staff had the schedule of the monitors completed, and that table topics have been provided, but he needed more feedback. The Chair stated that the primary shepherds of each policy or proposal will present them at ARIN 39. He asked the shepherds to please have slides prepared as soon as possible.

The Chair announced that the AC’s face-to-face meeting will be held directly following the wrap-up of the ARIN 39 PPM.

13. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items. He stated that he would send the slide template to the AC’s list shortly.

14. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:09 p.m. EDT. JS moved to adjourn, seconded by RS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.