Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 05 October 2018 [Archived]

Vancouver, BC

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)
• 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:

• Sean Hopkins

ARIN Staff:

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

ARIN General Counsel

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

ARIN Board Observers

• Paul Andersen, Chairman of the Board (PA)

• Dan Alexander, Trustee (DA)

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:52 p.m. PDT. The presence of a quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the Agenda with the Council. She noted item 4, and asked the Council to discuss any job changes or updates during that discussion.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 20 September 2018, as written.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Occupation Updates

OD noted that he had taken a Senior Network Architect position with Sail Internet. AP noted that she had moved into consulting for organizations who were involved with the IPv4 transfer marketplace. AT noted that she was now working in the public safety sector.

The President asked that all Council members make sure that their biography on the ARIN website is updated accordingly.

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

CT stated that the policy shepherds had received a great deal of feedback on the text, much of it amounting to the need for the text to be reviewed. He further stated that a new proposal that is seen as an alternative approach had been received by the Council. CT noted that if the new proposal that had just been received is not satisfactory, he would undertake to bring a new alternate proposal to solve the problem; but, a flawed proposal that would not work should not be accepted. He stated that the approach he was proposing had been taken in another case.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment.”

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair stated that if 2017-12 is forwarded to the Board of Trustees for adoption, it will need a report from the Council on further the further technical soundness research that has been performed. PA agreed, noting that if 2017-12 is abandoned, the Board would table its discussion. CW stated that alternate approaches to the problem statement exist, and he believes they will serve ARIN and the community better than 2017-12 currently does.

OD stated that he opposes the motion, as there is no need to abandon the Recommended Draft Policy prior to an existing alternative being advanced to Draft. He further stated that, should the Council wish to stay the implementation of a solution, abandoning 2017-12 may remove the possibility. PA stated that if the Council would like a stay of implementation, they will need to include a statement to that extent, otherwise staff will implement as usual.

DF stated that he would like a post-mortem, regardless of 2017-12’s outcome, to see what happened along the way. AD stated he would oppose the motion, as he finds it premature and without a clear path forward. He further stated that he was concerned with the change in support between the from ARIN 41 Public Policy Meeting (PPM) to the ARIN 42 PPM, with no change to the text. He stated that until that shift is better understood, he believes abandoning is not the right course of action.

JS stated that he was not in support of abandoning 2017-12. He further stated that the Board remanded 2017-12 when they could have rejected it, and it may be prudent to delay abandonment, give the Board a report, and re-evaluate at that time. He further stated that if the Board still did not adopt, they would still have the option to reject or remand at that time, but as the Council had found 2017-12 to meet the three principles of Internet number resource policy, there was no reason to abandon it.

The Chair clarified that the Council would have to submit a statement alongside a recommendation to the Board for adoption, not the statement itself. JS noted that the Board could have asked for clarification without remanding the policy.

CT stated that engaging with ARIN would be required for 2017-12’s process to work, and the community has stated that systems will break for some organizations; and, those entities may not have the budget to adapt to the changes. He stated that 2017-12 is not going to work as originally intended, and if the Council wants to direct the community down a different path, that will happen. He further stated that spending more time with 2017-12 and its implementation issues would not be wise in terms of resource allocation or process credibility and, as such, he believes the Council should work the problem from another angle. He further stated that the community’s shift in support is due to their fully understanding the implications.

The Chair noted that 2017-12’s implementation would clear up improper reassignment registrations, but what was not considered was an organization trusting that its registered reassignments are valid and will stay that way. The Chair further stated that the policy is not correctable to solve this issue, and as such she was in favor of the abandonment.

DF stated that he was supportive either way of abandoning or not abandoning, but would not support recommending it to the Board of Trustees with any claim for community support.
The Chair noted the show of hands results for 2017-12 (102 present, 5 in favor, 31 against).

AT stated she was not in support of abandoning before having a chance to present both 2017-12 and Prop-257 to the community.

OD stated that it seems as though one segment of the community has created an issue for the other segment, and the shift in support was due to the shift in the overall makeup of the room. He stated that while ARIN 41 was attended by more small ISPs, ARIN 42 was attended by more large providers, both ISPs and hosting providers. He further stated that he believes the overall community support is similar, but it should be adjusted to meet the community’s needs rather than being abandoned prematurely, as there is definitely support for solving the problem - however the Council chooses to proceed.

AD stated that 2017-12 went through Last Call, and all preceding steps of the Policy Development Process (PDP), very positively; and, he does not support abandoning it after all of that work. He further stated that he is concerned that the issues with 2017-12 were not illuminated earlier but, in any case, he would like the Council to continue to work on it.

AM stated that she was saddened that such a shift in support occurred, and asked if anything outside of the PDP could have helped avoid the situation. The Chair noted that one option could have been to deliver a lightning talk during the preceding NANOG meeting.

CT stated that on the preceding Monday he had asked for one, but was unsuccessful. The Chair stated that when future applicable Draft Policies are on the Advisory Council’s docket, a lightning talk should always be requested.

AW stated that she supports the abandonment if the Council communicates that they support the concept overall and have upcoming work to deal with it.

The President stated that the Advisory Council has a clear and valid problem statement in 2017-12 with which to work. As it stands, individuals are having records created for them which they are unaware of, and which may not be valid. Due to the remand, 2017-12’s technical justification requires further support; and, ARIN 42, thus far, has not demonstrated it. While this could be for a variety of reasons, the Council has two options. They can address the objections and again recommend 2017-12 to the Board for adoption, or they can move another vehicle forward that, in their determination, can better solve the issue. The President would expect to see the AC abandon a Recommended Draft Policy without at least discussing the alternative first, since there remains a valid problem to be solved.

JP stated that while he did not think 2017-12 provided the right solution to the problem statement, it should not be abandoned. He stated that the Council did not have enough data from across the community initially, but that he did get to talk to organizations that would be impacted by 2017-12, and staffing issues are just as prevalent as budgetary ones. He further stated that 2017-12 did need work, but he did not support abandoning it.

CT stated that indeed the Council had a valid problem statement, as the President had mentioned. He further stated that a similar situation arose when there was split community over Inter-RIR transfers, but that the Council needed to continue working on the problem itself.

CW stated that other options existed, perhaps by eliminating the need for detailed reassignments unless specifically requested, or even by disallowing automatic Point of Contact record creation from reassignment registrations. The Council could abandon 2017-12 with an explanation that the problem will be worked from another angle.

AM stated that the solution 2017-12 proposed is still valid, and that with enough time, organizations could adapt. She stated that she still supports working on 2017-12 as a solution.

CT stated that the detailed implementation report for 2017-12 was helpful, and it may have helped to receive that earlier in the process.

PA stated that, going forward, Draft Policies with exceptional implementation costs may see more detailed reporting.

CW stated that if the community response to abandoning 2017-12 is an issue, he would support abandoning it once another solution is on the docket.

The President stated that when 2017-12 received a staff and legal review there was indeed a thorough explanation of the challenging work-flow that would be created - both within ARIN and for those performing the large numbers of reassignments. Generally speaking, ARIN staff do point out significant impacts, but will take note for staff to be more outspoken in the case of future Draft Policies with similar large-scale impact.

KR stated that the Council needed to choose either 2017-12 or something better, but should have something better waiting if abandoning 2017-12.

The motion to abandon failed with two in favor (CT, AW), and 13 against (OD, AD, DF, AM, AP, JP, KR, LS, RS, JS, AT, CW, TM) via roll call vote.

DF stated that any AC members interested in an informal brainstorming session remain after the meeting is adjourned.

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

AW stated that during ARIN 42 there was support for this policy. The Chair noted the show of hands results for 2018-1 (131 present, 49 in favor, 2 opposed). AW noted that one additional person was against 2018-1.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-Regional ASN Transfers’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. JP stated that he was concerned with how broad the text was, and worried that the community may seek an inter-RIR transfer policy for IPv6 soon.

OD stated that for that reason and others, he does not support 2018-1. AW asked OD to clarify why 2018-1 would not be a good idea, and if it can be remedied. OD stated that specified transfers, in general, operate contrary to how resources should ideally be managed, and inter-RIR transfers only ever became necessary due to IPv4 runout. He stated that despite these reasons, there is clear community support, and he would support a motion to send it to Last Call.

AW stated that the spirit of the policy text is based more around Merger and Acquisition transfers necessitating the transfer of an Autonomous System Number. OD stated that 2018-1, as written, did not limit itself to that scenario.

The President stated that when one organization fully acquires another organization, ARIN recognizes the transfer of number rights to acquiring organization, regardless of whether it is within the ARIN region. No separation in process exists apart from what is stated in inter-RIR transfer policy.

CW stated that while he understands that inter-RIR transfers of IPv4 were necessary but not desired, creating an ASN Inter-RIR transfer policy accommodates an important use case, in that 16-bit ASNs are a more scarce resource.

JSw stated that several organizations exist with European and United States locations, where the United States location only exists due to the lack of an Autonomous System Number (ASN) transfer policy between the regions. The Chair stated that she had also encountered similar situations.

RS stated that he would not want to try running a 64-bit community with a 32-bit ASN, as it would diminish the customer experience.

OD stated that there are extended BGP communities that could work around 32-bit ASN usage issue.

RS stated that certainly options exist as workarounds, but the point stands.

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

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

KR stated that she had been noting comments in the room, as not many had come through the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). The Chair noted the show of hands results for 2018-2 (130 present, 37 in favor, 2 opposed).

KR mentioned that there was one vocal community member in opposition, and she researched their points. She stated that she believed moving 2018-2 to recommended would get conversation going, and if by the next Council meeting there was still no discussion, further action could be taken.

KR then moved to recommend 2018-2, but the motion was not seconded. CW pointed out that 2018-2 needed a staff and legal review first. KR requested a staff and legal review from the Chair, who acknowledged the request.

OD noted that moving 2018-2 to Recommended Draft Policy would be premature, as there were enough comments from the community to illustrate that 2018-2 could go multiple ways. He further stated that he believed it made more sense to liberalize Section 8 of the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) than to restrict Section 4.

JS stated that 2018-2 met the principles of Internet number resource policy, and that obtaining a staff and legal review was a good idea.

JP noted that a call-out in Section 4.2.4. of the NRPM was not in the current text, and that may impact the effectiveness of 2018-2.

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

JP stated that one objection came up, but there was still major support. The Chair noted the show of hands results for 2018-2 (131 present, 51 in favor, 1 opposed). JP stated that the objection was that the original relevant data being removed still had some value.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2018-3: Remove Reallocation Requirements for Residential Market Assignments’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

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

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

The Chair noted the show of hands results for 2018-4 (108 present, 26 in favor, 9 opposed).

CW stated that the community appeared apathetic on the issue of temporary sub-assignments. He asked for any comments on whether or not support exists. DF noted that he would vote in support, but it could use continued work. He noted that the community had suggested, among other things, that the term “transient” be used in place of “temporary” in the policy statement. OD stated that he supports the change.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2018-3: Remove Reallocation Requirements for Residential Market Assignments’ to Last Call, with the term “transient” to be used in place of “temporary” in the policy statement.”

The Chair called for comments and asked if the Council felt the change was necessary. JSw stated that staff would interpret 2018-4 in the same manner with either “temporary” or “transient” in use. OD stated that 2018-4 would enshrine the intent of the policy, and would make for better clarity, especially among non-native English speakers.

The President stated that the additional clarity had value.

DA asked if the similar proposal in the LACNIC region had support. OD noted that the RIPE community supported their version of the proposal.

CW stated that he supported the language change. KR stated that while the LACNIC community showed support, there would be a one-week period after their meeting before consensus would be judged. AT stated that she supported the change as well.

The motion carried with 14 in favor (OD, AD, DF, AM, AP, JP, KR, LS, RS, JS, CT, AT, AW, CW) and one opposed (TM) via roll call vote.

The President stated that while minor clarifying text may feel unnecessary, it can help prevent problematic text from being implemented later.

10. Proposed Editorial Change to Number Resource Policy Manual (Formerly ARIN-Prop-255: NRPM Cleanup)

CT noted that the editorial change was out for community review until 25 October, and that there was no update at this time.

11. Proposed Editorial Change to Number Resource Policy Manual (Formerly ARIN-Prop-256: Modify 8.3 and 8.4 for Clarity)

AT noted that the editorial change was out for community review until 25 October, and that there was no update at this time, apart from noting that the author was in support.

12. Any Other Business

Travel Expenses and Scheduling

The Chair covered ARIN’s new travel schedule reporting pages for both the AC and Board, as well as travel expense reporting for Staff, Board, and AC members.

PA noted that the travel schedule will be more in-advance in later years, but currently is backward-looking on a quarterly basis. He further stated that the expense reporting will continue to be backward-looking on a quarterly basis. He urged Council members to maintain expeditious expense reporting and to continue heightened sensitivity to social media awareness, and general scrutiny surrounding travel and activities when representing ARIN in other regions.

RS thanked the Chair and staff for creating the reports, as they are beneficial for transparency.

PA noted that substantial consultation went into the creation of all reports, and those who requested them are satisfied with the results.

AC Face-to-Face Meeting

The Chair noted that the January 2019 AC face-to-face meeting would be held in Houston, TX.

ARIN-Proposal-257: Disallow Third-party Organization Record Creation

The Chair noted that policy shepherds would be assigned shortly, and welcomed any volunteers.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 1:50 p.m. PDT. AD moved to adjourn, seconded by OD. The meeting adjourned with no objections.