Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 February 2018 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

• Tina Morris, Chair (TM)
• Leif Sawyer, Vice Chair (LS)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Alyssa Moore (AM)
• Amy Potter (AP)
• Joe Provo (JP)
• Kerrie Richards (KR)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• John Springer (JS)
• Chris Tacit (CT)
• Alicia Trotman (AT)
• Alison Wood (AW)
• Chris Woodfield (CW)

Scribe:

• Therese Simcox

ARIN Staff:

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

ARIN General Counsel

• Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.

Regrets

• Owen DeLong

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EST. 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 DF, and seconded by JS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 26 January 2018, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

AP stated that she had posted updated language to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) which received one positive response. She noted a staff and legal review had been conducted with no issues.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends Draft Policy ARIN-2017-3: Update to NRPM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation, for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. AP stated that she had also updated the AC’s Wiki.

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

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the Definition of Community Network

DF stated that a staff and legal review was conducted with no issues.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the Definition of Community Network, for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that the staff and legal review was clear with no issues raised. There had been one or two comments on PPML which were positive. DF believed the policy was ready to present for discussion at ARIN 41 in April; and he was optimistic for a Last Call period to follow.

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

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4 ISP Transfers

DF stated that this was a more controversial policy. He intended to present it at ARIN 41 as a Draft Policy. The Chair asked if anything could be done to make the text ready more quickly. DF replied that it needed more feedback from the community. The limited responses were split between not doing anything at all about the issue or whether adjusting Section 8 to be compatible with Section 4 and vice versa. The community appeared to be split with which direction to take. He noted there had not been many comments received to date. He noted he had been pushing for more discussion on PPML.

JP asked if there was a sector of the community that have not spoken up? DF replied that he was uncertain because there had only been a fairly limited number of responses. He stated that only four comments had any real specificity, but that the total number of comments are fairly divided.

DF suggested some AC members should speak up on PPML to foster discussion. The Chair agreed.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-10: Repeal of Immediate Need for IPv4 Address Space

AD stated that a staff and legal review had been conducted and noted that there were still references to the ‘Immediate Need’ section elsewhere in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). He forwarded changes to the AC’s mailing list and to the AC Wiki for review. He noted that the AC was in favor of the changes. The references were removed.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends Draft Policy ARIN-2017-10: Repeal of Immediate Need for IPv4 Address Space (NRPM Section 4.2.1.6), for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no further comments.

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

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-11: Reallocation and Reassignment Language Clean-up

AM stated that she edited the draft policy per discussions at AC’s last meeting. She asked if moving to make the policy an editorial change would supported. She noted the AC’s Wiki had been updated with the edited language.
AD thanked AM for the redline of the text and concurred that the update was editorial in nature. He stated that he would support a motion to that affect.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts Draft Policy ARIN-2017-11: Reallocation and Reassignment Language Clean-up as an editorial change.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no further comments.

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

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

CT stated that there had been no change in the status of this draft policy, and he was waiting for the staff and legal review. He noted that there had been no additional comments on the PPML. CT stated that he did not intend on changing the text until the staff and legal review was conducted.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-13: Remove ARIN Review Requirements for Large IPv4 Reassignments/Reallocations

JS stated that there were no changes at moment. The staff and legal review had been conducted and he needed to post his intent to move the text to recommended draft policy status to see if that elicits any comments on the PPML.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-Regional ASN Transfers

AW stated that the feedback from PPML had been excellent. She noted half were in favor, and half were against. Some wanted verbiage to the say ASNs could be moved with IPv4 allocations, and wanted the statement rewritten. AW stated she would like to keep the text as written and request a staff and legal review. She intended to present the text at ARIN 41 for discussion as a recommended draft policy.

CW stated that he echoed OD’s past comments in that he did not believe is was a good idea to tie to any other resource to a transfer. He stated there were a number of reasons to transfer a resource without an ASN along with it. He recommended against that including that type of requirement. CW noted the problem statement, as-is, states that there is a ’need’. He noted this was self-justifying. The problem statement needed more rationale for making changes than a claim that a ’need’ exists. There have been discussions why it would be useful, and he suggest to use them in crafting a better problem statement. AW agreed to integrate the discussion points into the problem statement.

12. ARIN-Prop-251: Correct References to RWhois

The Chair stated it had been voted at the last AC meeting to make this an editorial change, however substantive changes were brought up. She noted that there would have to be a re-vote at this meeting.

The Chair asked AT if she had any comments since OD was unavailable to comment. AT stated she had been following the chat and believed it was ready to move as an editorial change as the text had been updated.

The Chair asked if AC if they had time enough to review the changes. AD stated that he was unclear as to what had changed.

JP, author, stated that he did not see the language updated on the AC’s Wiki.

AD suggested wait until the AC’s next meeting to move it as an editorial change, after the AC’s Wiki can be updated and the text reviewed.

The Chair agreed stating there was no rush to move the text at this time.

13. ARIN-Prop-252: Clarification to ISP Initial Allocation and Permit Renumbering

RS stated that the problem statement is long and difficult to follow. However, he noted that the policy statement is clear and understandable. He suggested to accept it onto the AC’s docket and work with author on the problem statement.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ARIN-Prop-252: Clarification to ISP Initial Allocation and Permit Renumbering, as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair stated proposal could use grammatical revisions. RS agreed and stated he would make the changes.

CT asked if working with author wasn’t supposed to happen before this point in time. The President replied that the AC can work with the author before or after it is accepted onto the AC’s docket. Once it has been accepted, it is the AC’s draft to edit and not the author’s. The AC can still work with the author regardless, and it is encouraged that the AC do so.

CW asked if it was proper procedure for the AC shepherds to edit the text independent of the author before accepting it as a draft. The President stated that the shepherds are supposed to work with the proposal originator by providing feedback for clarity and understanding of the proposal. The goal is a clear problem statement and the AC needs to work with the author to craft one.

CT stated that the goal would be to get the author to agree to it, and he would like to see the AC work with the author first. The author may want to withdraw the text - or change it significantly and end up with a different text. CT stated he would like the text to go through another pass with the author before accepting it onto the AC’s docket.

The President stated that the proposal originator should agree with it before the AC accepts it. The proposal originator can revise it and the AC can do it for the proposal originator once the AC shepherds and proposal originator are satisfied. The President cautioned the AC not to send something out that the proposal originator does not know about.

JS stated that there was a motion on the table to accept the proposal as a draft policy. The problem statement has to be clear and in scope for the PDP. Per the shepherds, the text is not clear. JS stated he would vote against the motion.

RS stated that the AC can mince words on whether the text was clear or not. He stated that he understood the text as written, but the way it was expressed did not rise to the level of gaining consensus. He noted that the text needed to be cleaned up but understood if the AC voted against the motion. RS stated that he would not be withdrawing the motion.

CW stated that the problem statement was not comprehensive or clear. He did not believe he would understand it until someone explained it to him.

The motion to adopt as a draft policy failed with 13 against, and 1 in favor (RS).

The Chair stated after further edits were made to the problem statement, the proposal would be discussed at the AC’s next meeting.

14. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

The Chair stated that staff had made formatting changes to the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) but that the redlines were very heavy and hard to read. She noted that nothing had changed as far as the language or intent of the document. The Chair stated that LS had crafted a summary of the changes and will post it to the AC for review. This will be discussed at the AC’s March meeting for a vote.

The President stated that there was nothing wrong with taking raw material from staff and taking subsets of material for presenting as editorial changes. He noted that separating the whole into a few small pieces would get more of a response by the community, rather than one large omnibus change that may not get the attention it deserved.

LS acknowledged this and stated that the summary he crafted did lend itself to smaller pieces.

AD asked if the overall intent was to improve readability and clarity of the NRPM. The Chair stated that was the intent.

15. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:46 p.m. EST. JS moved to adjourn, seconded by CW. The meeting adjourned with no objections.