Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 June 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)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• John Springer (JS)
• Chris Tacit (CT)
• Alison Wood (AW)
• Chris Woodfield (CW)

Scribe

• Thérèse Simcox

ARIN Staff

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
• John Curran, 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.

AC Member Regrets

• Leif Sawyer

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. The Chair added “Update from Owen DeLong”, per OD’s request, under Any Other Business.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 18 May 2017, as written.”

The Chair called for any objections. There were none.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-1: Clarify Slow-start for Transfers

AW stated that, after speaking with author, and a lack of support shown on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), she would like to make the motion as follows:

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2017-1: Clarify Slow-start for Transfers.”

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair stated this action stems from discussions on the PPML, and that the goal of this draft policy is already covered under normal ARIN business practices. AW concurred.

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

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks

AP stated that, per PPML conversations, the community was not in favor. The draft policy would need a change in the definition of community networks in order for it to work. This will most likely be abandoned, but she stated it will be left on the PPML a little longer to see if further discussion will take place. The Chair ask her if she believed it would be going to another Public Policy Meeting (PPM) for discussion, or did she see it being abandoned before the PPM in October? AP stated she preferred that it be abandoned before October but that would depend on how the discussion on the PPML panned out. The Chair agreed.

OD stated the conversation on the PPML was clearly trending toward developing a proposal to create a useful definition and not to just retire this from the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). He stated he would be in favor of abandonment eventually, but believed it to be premature at this time.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-3: Update to NRPM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation

AP stated that Leslie Nobile, of ARIN, and TM gave a presentation at NANOG 70 recently, and there was much feedback received at the meeting. AP would like to circle back with them and law enforcement to figure out the next steps, such as how to break down the policy into distinct issues, and move forward in less controversial aspects.

DF stated it may be useful to send a note to the PPML with a link to the presentation and question and answers for people to weigh in. A summary of the discussion for those who weren’t there would also be helpful. He agreed with the direction in which AP indicated the policy was going.

AM stated that she would be sending notes to the AC’s mailing list from the video of the presentation.

AP voiced concern that if the draft policy remains as it is, will not move further. She did not want to frustrate the law enforcement community with a draft policy that would not go through to fruition. The Chair asked AP if she saw that some issues relate to 2017-5 as a possible merger of the policies or is this a stand-alone policy? AP stated that the initial thoughts on 2017-5 was that it was good to have an alternative proposal to make reassignments voluntary as related issues are going on, but she reiterated the desire to discuss it further with law enforcement and to think more about it.

CW stated that his reading of the comments from the community was that it clearly rejected revocation of reverse DNS as an enforcement mechanism. We are bound to implement what community accepts, we need to show the opinions to the law enforcement community. If the community doesn’t law enforcement’s implementation request, what action would that lead to?

The Chair stated it was a fine line here regardless - if legislation is a result of an action, community action is kept in mind. We want to make sure we give law enforcement due attention and address it as much as possible.

AP reiterated breaking up the issues, brainstorming the overall issue and the component parts, then coming up with proposals on the issues. She did not see reverse DNS as one of the issues.

The Chair addressed JS on his desire to comment on 2017-2 when it was previously discussed. JS stated that, with regard to abandonment of the policy, he would like to see a proposal on the table that included alternatives and definitions before abandoning the current draft policy. He believed it has value as a placeholder, and should not be abandoned until there was a replacement policy.

OD reiterated that he believed holding a proposal as a stick to coerce something that we know no one wants was inappropriate and he opposed it, as he had made his views known at ARIN 39.

The Chair agreed that there were many objections to the text, but he was unsure that no one wanted it. He agreed that JS’s idea was a better approach rather than abandoning it now without a replacement.

DF stated that he preferred to not eliminate community networks. He did not believe that leaving it on the AC’s docket was a stick to coerce. The policy is not acceptable as currently written, a number of people would prefer something else. If something else isn’t created, the least worst option is deleting it. Until there is an open proposal, he did not support abandoning this current draft policy.

7. Draft Policy 2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers

JP stated that per conversations with the author and per the staff and legal review, an updated text has been posted to the AC Wiki yesterday, the title will be changed, and other minor edits were made. He asked the AC for their comments before he posts it to the PPML. The Chair agreed.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Equalization of Assignment Registration Requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

CT stated that feedback received via the PPML indicates that the IPv4 requirements of this policy should be removed. The modified policy was recirculated on the PPML and it was the appropriate thing to do as the title had included IPv4. The other suggestion made was to remove the IPv6 cut-off for registration to a /56, and it is our intention to do that and run it by the community on the PPML once again. The Chair noted a lot of discussion has taken place on the PPML on the matter.

DH stated that the problem with the discussion in that the bit boundary has no basis in routing. He did not see many reasons for why one number is better than another and he questioned the technical soundness of that portion – it seemed arbitrary. He had commented for a /48 as that was the only one that he knows of that does evolve, and was likely to be independently routed. He did not believe smaller than a /48 were interesting, as they are part of the default route that comes in the /32 that the LIR have.

OD agreed that it is arbitrary and believed that a /56 is better because it is closer to reality. He stated that he would be in favor of anything smaller than a /48 not being routable. There are a lot of arbitrary things in ARIN policy which resulted in routing shifting in that direction. He did not believe it was necessarily a bad thing since we have to pick something the community will gain consensus on. That is where policy lands. As for technical soundness – many arbitrary numbers get picked all the time. One picks it and see if it works. He did not see that as an argument against technical soundness.

CW queried if the goal of the policy to match SWIP to IPv4, and the problem is that the practices do not map to reality? IPv6 is still slightly in flux.

The Chair also queried if it is possible to rewrite it apart from bit boundary and call out the type of assignments, instead of a particular boundary. He stated he would take that to the mailing list.

CW stated that that brings up a question of purpose. He had /56 routed, and a registered business is likely to get the same of one and not the other – that’s a fair question. The key could be the nature the routing allocation. His /56 was not static. If he were to request it, it could be the line of demarcation: dynamically routed versus statically. Another possibility: does the user of the space have the expectation of route space never changing, or is the customer agreement written so that they have no expectation of keeping same block?

9. ARIN-Prop-235: Clarify Generic References to “IP Addresses” In NRPM

The Chair provided an update that this text was remanded to the author and if it stays with the author, then it will be abandoned. If it comes back to the AC, they will work on it further.

10. ARIN-Prop-241: Improve Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts “ARIN-Prop-241: Improve Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers” as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. AW stated that this was posted to the PPML. She summarized that the author expressed that there was loophole with regard to reciprocity.

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

11. ARIN-Prop-242: Retire Obsolete Section 4 from the NRPM

CW stated that the initial review was complete, with minor corrections made, and it has been sent to AC’s list. He stated it was not edited on the AC’s Wiki since it had not yet been accepted as a draft policy. The Chair explained that it is cleaner to accept proposal as a draft policy before making edits, or work with the author.

OD, as the author, stated that he had sent a note to CW to accept the edits and to go forward before the this meeting today.

The President stated that when considering a policy proposal, the proposal shepherds should work with the author to the extent possible so the problem statement is clear one what problem they are trying to solve. Once the problem statement is clear and in scope, the AC can accept the proposal as a draft policy. The AC can still continue to work with the author, if available, but the AC controls the draft policy at that point and should be primarily focused on the policy text that addresses the described problem. The President noted to make sure the problem statement is clear during the policy proposal phase.

The Chair concurred stating that the AC should make sure they all understand what text they are voting on. If it is ready ‘as-is’, we can accept it.

CW stated that he believed the problem statement to be ready to vote on.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts “ARIN-Prop-242: Retire Obsolete Section 4 from the NRPM, as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were comments.

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

12. Any Other Business

Review NANOG 70 WHOIS Presentation

The Chair stated this presentation was given at the NANOG 70 meeting. He was supposed to present it but could not, therefore TM presented it in his place. TM stated that the presentation was fairly well-received. People were not fond of the fix of removing the routing. It may not be as effective as we would hope. AP stated that she sent a summary to the AC’s list. TM stated it was a successful discussion and to continue to move forward.

AD agreed. He stated it was clear to him that removal of DNS was not supported by the Operators in the room. He noted that the room count was small by end of the day, about 200 people, but they were participating.

JS asked if the meeting was recorded and if it would be available to general public and when? TM stated it was indeed recorded, via YouTube, and that AM would be sending the link to the Council.

Update from Owen DeLong

OD stated that in the interest of full disclosure, he recently accepted a Board position on the Internet Civil Engineering Institute. He did not foresee any conflict, but wanted to be upfront to the Council about the position.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:51 p.m. EDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by CW. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.