Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 16 August 2018 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

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

Scribe:

• Therese Simcox

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Sean Hopkins (SHo), Policy Analyst
• Richard Jimmerson (RJ), CIO

ARIN Board

• Paul Andersen, Board Chair

Regrets

• Joe Provo

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged regrets sent from JP and RS.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the Agenda with the Council, and called for any comments. The Chair stated that item 6 would be discussed before item 4, due to time constraints in KR’s schedule.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 19 July 2018, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

The Chair stated that item 6 would be discussed at this time.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2018-2: Clarification to ISP Initial Allocation and Permit Renumbering

KR stated that there have been no changes. Three comments have been received on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). She stated that the AC had a brainstorming session last week which resulted in non-policy shepherds on the AC will work their networks to provide comments and feedback. This was ‘plan A’ and it is working. Plan B was to revisit the policy on the 23rd, and then post it to the PPML stating it would be abandoned if there was no further interest in it. KR stated she will continue to watch community feedback on the PPML, until the 23rd; and, then the AC can decide on next steps. KR noted that the three comments received have been in favor.

KR left the call at this time (4:11 p.m EDT).

The Chair resumed the Agenda in order.

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

At the ARIN Board’s July 31 2018 meeting, they moved to remand ARIN Recommended Draft Policy 2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment to the ARIN Advisory Council.

Noting the complexity of the policy, the Board wants a more complete policy assessment of technical soundness, and recommends interviews by the Advisory Council with ISPs who make numerous delegation requests including those with IP management platforms, if such interviews have not been already conducted.

The Board Chair thanked the Chair for inviting him to the call. He reviewed the history of the discussion that the Board has had on this policy from the beginning of its recommendation to the Board by the AC. He stated that given the substantial costs to implement the policy, the Board wanted to be sure they understood the impact of the implementation on organizations. In the Board’s discussions, it was also noted that there may not have been enough documentation on the technical soundness of the policy with regard to large ISPs when deployed. The Board asks the AC to research this outside of standard formats (PPML, etc.) though direct interviews. ARIN is happy to provide resources to do this, if the AC requires any assistance.

The President stated that if the policy change is made as recommended by AC, ARIN will be rejecting requests 10 days later after POC validation. ARIN could instead reject requests immediately using a different interpretation of “valid”, what is called option b, but either way we need to know whether or not the people creating detailed requirements are aware of the impact of the policy. Once the policy is rolled out, it will significantly affecting workflow to many organizations. The Board discussed the ARIN side of the workload, but the bigger issue is the fact that it is more user-impacting to automation systems.

The Chair explained that the Board is erring on the side of caution as this policy present a six figure development cost, and the Board wants to make sure there is not a serious negative reaction if effort is made. He stated that the Board appreciates the AC’s input and if one option is more resource intensive, please provide justification.

OD stated that he agrees with what has been stated, however he noted that the policy was strongly supported by the ARIN community who participated in the Policy Development Process (PDP), and that the very organizations that the Board is looking to help cope with the issue are, in a large measure, the ones who created the problem that the policy addresses. OD stated that because of this, in his case it falls on deaf ears. He stated he was in favor of all an extended noticification period once the policy is ready to implement, and in favor of beginning to send noficiations on the fact that the policy is coming. He was also in favor of speaking with the ISPS, but he did not want to see the AC discard or interfere with implementation moving forward because of concern at this point, when it was discussed within the community upon creation.

The Chair stated it is a large impletmentation cost for ARIN and refinements may be more costly. He stated that the Board respects the PDP, but is trying to gain clarity before a decision is made.

JS asked how the AC is to discern that they have fulfilled the Board’s request. He noted the Board is asking for interviews and asked if there there is a check list to fulfill so that the AC knows when they have met the threshold. The Chair stated there was no specific minimum number discussed at the Board level, nor any organizations in mind. The Board has faith in the AC to perform this task, but as the policy has been assessed by staff, there is a concern that the magnitude of implementation requires that the technical soundness of the policy change be confirmed. One-on-one feedback would be helpful for the Board to make its decision as this is the largest policy from a cost implementation standpoint that has been presented in some time. More detail is needed.

JS asked if this meant that the procedure for enhanced technical soundness for a policy would be needed? The Chair responded that on this particular policy the Board wants a more detailed assessment. JS stated he was trying to determine that their outcome satisfies the Board, when the AC sends it back to them for approval.

The President stated it was a valid question: how does the AC know if the assessment is sufficiently complete. He stated that the Board looked at this with a more detailed eye due to the implementation that would be involved. Once implementation is done, it will have an impact on organization’s systems more significantly than other policies. The AC did not address whether the organizations impacted are aware, ready, or able to deal with the changes. Once the polcy is implemented what will be the net affect? Will they be receptive to changing their systems or not? We have no way of knowing at this time, and it represents a significant development effort that might have to be rolled back if those impacted are not supportive.

The Chair stated that if there are concerns that the Board’s direction is not clear enough, please bring it to the AC Chair to present to the Board for clarification.

The AC Chair asked what level of response the Council was looking for. Most organizations were present and participated in the PDP and did not object to the policy. We may reach out to the same organizations. The Chair asked if she was an appropriate person to do an interview, or if an executive would be needed?

The President responded that if the AC conducts the interviews and is able to say that they have confidence that the effect of the policy will be a more accurate database, that will be satisfactory. Organizations may stop detailed reassignments requests completely – which may be fine - but we cannot tell. What does the AC expect from this policy? If the AC has that data, we ask that you write it into the policy assessment.

DF stated that when he looks at this as another level of detail that the AC did not have before from the staff assessment. He suggested treating it as staff assessement when the AC conducts the interviews or provides clearer guidance. He stated that he appreciates the request for additional research and that it provides a path to head off potential problems. He appreciated that the policy was remanded to the AC based on the new information.

CW stated that there had been mention of stakeholders who participated during the PPML who gave implicit consent, which is valid feedback as they are from large organizations. Unless there is a clear benefit to individual stakeholders, we may need to take the answer with a grain of salt.

AD stated that he would like to know if the Board wants input on the ‘a’ or ‘b’ options from the community or from individuals, or is that yet to be decided? The Chair stated that he would not restrict discussions, but if there were different options that meet the essence of the problem to be solved, the AC should provide the Board with their feedback. The Board is not opposed to the more costly solution, but is looking to understand the reasoning for such and as the Advisory Council, you need to make the analysis.

The President stated that the staff did an assessment of detailed implemention, which lead to the discussion, which lead to remanding the policy to the AC. The Board needs to understand the impact of the policy to the community using it. The policy was not remanded for preference for workload. The President stated he did try to come up with less impactful workload for staff, but workload is not the reason it is being remanded. He asked the AC to lool at whether the community is aware of the impact of rejecting these requests, and what is the expected outcome - compliance or that they will simply stop making detailed reassignment requests? We need to know that for policy implementation as significant as this one is.

The AC Chair stated she will discuss the matter further with the AC shepherds of this policy next week.

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

AW stated her intention to forward this policy to a last call period after ARIN 42. She noted the comments on the PPML were indifferent to passionate, with one member against it. She stated she would continue to encourage more discussion on the PPML up to the time of ARIN 42, and hopes for discussion at the microphone during the meeting.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2018-2: Clarification to ISP Initial Allocation and Permit Renumbering

Discussed previously.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2018-3: Remove Reallocation Requirements for Residential Market Assignments

AP stated that there were no changes to the policy, nor further discussion on the PPML. She will be presenting the policy at ARIN 42, and that comments received thus far have been mostly positive.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

CW stated that the original intention was to move the policy to recommended draft status due to light feedback that was received. However, subsequently discussion has begun, and there has been a fairly significant amount of support for slight rewording of the text. The revisions would not change the policy’s intent. CW noted that DF suggested modifications and that they made sense. CW asked for clarification that a second staff and legal review would be needed if changes were made. The Chair answered affirmatively. CW stated in that event, he intends on another modification of the policy and to request a staff and legal review with the goal of moving the policy to recommended draft status at the next AC meeting in September. He stated it would then be presented as such at ARIN 42. The Chair thanked CW for his update. SH reviewed deadlines for changes to policies with the AC.

9. ARIN-Prop-255: NRPM Cleanup

JS stated that the policy shepherds and the author have been working on this proposal, and the shepherds are awaiting the author’s approval. He stated as it is intented as an editorial change, we need approval from the author on the revisions. Once the author approves of them, we can move forward with the proposal on the AC’s next meeting in September.

LS stated that he was working in conjunction with SH on these revisions and had identified minor HTML cleanup that was awaiting implementation by ARIN communications. These HTML cleanup items will make additional changes cleaner.

CT had dropped from the call due to technical difficulties and rejoined the call at this time (4:47 pm. EDT). The Chair briefed him on the current discussion. CT stated we want the text as clean as possible before it becomes an editioral change. The Chair acknowledged his comment.

10. Summary of Overdue Expense Reports

The Chair stated she was happy to report that there are no overdue reports at this time. She Reminded the AC to comply with the 30 day deadline of submitting expenses per the travel policy. She stated that if an AC member did not intend on submitting an expense report after travel, to make sure staff is aware of that so that the AC member is not added to the overdue expense report list.

11. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

New Proposal 256

The Chair stated a proposal was recently received. The appointed policy shepherds are AT and OD.

Travel for ARIN 42

The Chair reminded the AC to plan their travel for ARIN 42.

2018-4

CW stated that at the time 2018-4 was written there was editorial change awaiting adoption. It has since been incorporated in to the current NRPM. He asked if it would be prudent to update the “before” text in the Policy Statement to reflect the current NRPM. The President responded to update the text as it is currently written in the NRPM.

12. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:52 p.m. EDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by JS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.