Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 21 March 2019 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

• Tina Morris, Chair (TM)
• Leif Sawyer, Vice Chair (LS)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Kat Hunter (KH)
• Alyssa Moore (AM)
• Amy Potter (AP)
• Joe Provo (JP)
• Kerrie Richards (KR)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• Chris Tacit (CT)
• Alicia Trotman (AT)
• Chris Woodfield (CW)

Scribe:

• Susan Hamlin

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela, Associate General Counsel
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Sean Hopkins (SH), Policy Analyst
• Richard Jimmerson (RJ), COO
• John Sweeting, (JS) Sr. Director, Registration Services

ARIN General Counsel

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

ARIN Board of Trustees

• Paul Andersen (PA)
• Dan Alexander (DA)

Regrets

• Alison Wood (AW)

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:04 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. OD stated he would like to provide a disclosure during Any Other Business. The Chair agreed.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 21 February 2019, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

CT stated that DF had taken a new approach to the problem, and that DF and CT had reworked the language on that basis. DF posted the text to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and revised the Draft Policy. They obtained a staff and legal review and then made further changes. CT stated that although there had been little discussion on the PPML recently, he was confident in the text as it currently stands, and would like to move it back to recommended draft policy status.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: POC Notification and Validation Upon Reassignment or Reallocation’ for adoption.”

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

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

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

KR reported having connectivity issues and, as such, the discussion of 2018-2 was moved to item 11.

6. ARIN-2018-5: Disallow Third-Party Organization Record Creation

. AD stated that a staff and legal review had been conducted, and that there were no items that needed to be addressed. He stated that based on the staff and legal review and feedback from the PPML, 2018-5 was ready to be moved to recommended draft status. AD further stated that he believed the draft policy to be fair and impartial and technically sound, but while there had been no negative feedback from the PPML, community support was weak. He stated that because 2018-5 requires operaters to make changes, he believed it needed stronger support from the community.

It was moved by AD, seconded by OD, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2018-5: Disallow Third-Party Organization Record Creation’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. CT stated that less contentious policy changes often see weak support, and that lack of strong affirmation did not mean that this text was not ‘good policy’.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

7. ARIN-2018-6: Clarify Reassignment Requirements in 4.2.3.7.1

AM stated that ARIN 43 will be the first meeting to have a discussion of 2018-6, and she is working on slides. She noted that no action need to be taken at this time.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements

KH stated that there were no changes needed at this time, and that slides had been created. The PPML feedback has been positive, and more feedback maybe forthcoming during ARIN 43. CW asked if now would be an appropriate time to request a staff and legal review. The Chair noted that KH had the option to defer on requesting a review. KH stated that it would be best to wait, as a saff and legal review may not be ready by ARIN 43.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size Restriction

AD stated that he and AW had discussed the text, and that substantial discussion had already occurred on the PPML. As this draft policy goes along with other waiting list-related proposals, he would like to bring this to ARIN 43 as-is. The Chair thanked AD for his summary of the PPML feedback.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-3: Update 4.10 – IPv6 Deployment Block

AT stated that there had only been one comment on the PPML, and stated that the policy will be presented in Barbados. The Chair asked if the AC if they had any comments or concerns. There were none.

11. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2018-2: Clarification to ISP Initial Allocation

KR stated that 2018-2 had been posted to the PPML prior to the February AC teleconference, and has only seen one administrative comment since that time. KR stated that she would like to wait for more feedback, but has prepared a slide deck for ARIN 43. JP observed that the title of this policy had been corrected everywhere else except for on this agenda. SH removed the words “…and Permit ReNumbering” from the policy’s title during the call, to reflect the updated, correct title.

12. ARIN-Prop-259: Remove IPv4 Reference in NRPM Section 6.10.1

The Chair noted that if any proposals move to draft policy status, they may be discussed at ARIN 43. Further, if any proposals are not moved to draft policy status, those proposal may still be mentioned during the AC’s overview of their docket.

AM stated that this proposal was straightforward and believed it could be an editorial change. The President stated that it if the Council wished to classify the proposal as an editorial change, it would be sent to the community as such for 30 days followed by the opportunity for agreement, among the Council and Board, that the policy change would indeed be editorial.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-259: Remove IPv4 Reference in NRPM Section 6.10.1.’ as an editorial change.”

The Chair called for discussion. CW asked if this editorial change would be assigned a reference number. SH stated that it would.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

13. ARIN-Prop-263: Allow Inter-Regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

DF stated that he intends to move this to draft policy status, and that he has received some revisions. He further stated that the proposal is in scope, with a clear problem statement, though some might see the problem statement as invalid.

OD concurred, stating that the proposal should be moved to draft policy status, and the Council should wait to see what is done regarding the Resource Public Key Infrastructure Trust Anchor Locator (RPKI TAL).

AP asked if the intent was to take the proposal to the meeting. DF stated that he intends to present it as a Draft Policy, hopefully after the RPKI discussion. JP stated that addressing the proposal after the RPKI discussion would be fruitful, and believed that the proposal had longevity.

The President stated that the Council may find it useful to work with the author, or to consider a problem statement inclusive of the scenario wherein an organization wishes to consolidate or manage the entirety of their resources via a single RIR, requiring a transfer of resources including IPv6 address space. He further stated that there are several reasons this may occur. The President noted that the issue does involve RPKI to an extent, but regardless of whether there is a workaround involving RPKI adoption, the community is likely to want the proposal discussed.

DF stated that once management of the text comes under AC control, he intends to add other cases to the problem statement.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-263: Allow Inter-Regional IPv6 Resource Transfers’ as a Draft Policy.”

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

The motion carried unamiously, via roll call vote.

14. ARIN-Prop-264: Validation of Abuse-Mailbox

OD stated that this proposal would need substantial modification to fit ARIN’s processes, and he did not feel that the proposal is ready to discuss at ARIN 43 prior to modification.

It was suggested that working with the author and bringing it to ARIN 44 as a draft policy may be a good option. SH stated that, should the Council move this proposal to draft policy status, an agenda slot is not mandated. OD stated that he would prefer to move the proposal to draft policy status, but to not assign any time on the ARIN 43 agenda to it until further modifications could be made.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-264: Validation of Abuse-mailbox.’ as a Draft Policy, with the request that it not be put onto ARIN 43’s agenda.”

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

The motion carried uanimously, via roll call vote.

15. ARIN-Prop-265: Longer Hold Time Requirements for 4.1.8 Recipients

RS stated that the problem statement is clear, the policy statement is clear, and the proposal addresses a problem.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-265: Longer Hold Time Requirements for 4.1.8 Recipients’ as a Draft Policy.”

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

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

16. ARIN-Prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

CW stated that he is unclear of the scope of this proposal, and that the text needs significant work. He stated that “violations” are not defined in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), and it is uncertain if the problem statement is something the NRPM needs to accommodate. He stated that this proposal may need to have more questions answered before it advances.

The Chair agreed that the scope needs to be clarified before advancing. OD stated he did not believe the proposal was in scope, as ARIN is not meant to enforce routing practices. CW concurred, adding that substantial changes to both the NRPM and ARIN’s Registration Services Agreement (RSA) would be needed to make this proposal feasible.

RS stated that he was concerned with labeling anything as a violation without defining any concrete consequences, and should those consequences involve the collection of any contact information, that itself may be a violation of policy-making the entire proposal a no-op.

The President stated that this proposal was a borderline situation. If the policy intent is to have ARIN update the registry to revoke resources in the case of improper BGP usage, then as registry management policy one could argue that it is in scope for the NRPM. Whether or not it is in scope for ARIN the organization, is another issue. The President noted that the AC could move this to draft policy status, and have the community discuss it or, the AC could reject it as out of scope with the potential for the author to petition that decision. CW stated that he would like to take more time to consider the proposal.

The Chair stated that this proposal will remain as-is, as further review by the AC is needed.

17. ARIN-Prop-267: Elimination of the Waiting List

AT stated that she had not been able to connect with the author yet, but believed this proposal should be discussed at ARIN 43 due to the other proposals that are related. AP stated that she is unsure that this proposal is in scope, but has no problem with AT’s approach.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-267: Elimination of the Waiting List’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. RS stated that he does not believe the proposal will gain community support, but believes the solution is sound outside of its potential impact on those currently on the waiting list.

The President stated that the appropriate path is to advance proposals that are clear and in scope, and obtain staff and legal reviews to determine any concerns on ARIN’s part, through a formal process.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

18. AC 2020 January Face-to-Face Meeting Update

The Chair confirmed that this AC meeting will be in Miami, Florida on 24 January 2020.

19. AC Waitlist Suspension Response

RS stated that he was pleased to have fostered a small amount of discussion on the PPML. He stated that at ARIN 43 he would like to conduct a review of the Council’s menu of options, with notation of which options have resulted in created proposals, and see if any more policy proposals are proposed. JP noted he was surprised by some of the responses that aligned with the menu of options, and those that were outside of what he predicted.

20. Any Other Business

60-Day Overdue Expense Reports

(Exhibit A)

DF stated that he will have his report in by Monday, with the accompanying required letter of explanation with regard to his late submission.

ARIN 43 Table Topics

LS mentioned that the ARIN 43 table topics currently on the list are: WHOIS cleanup, transfer policy, and the waiting list. The Chair asked the Council to come to a consensus on the table topics list and, for those presenting at ARIN 43, to start working on presentation slides.

AC Disclosure

OD stated that he had accepted a consulting position with the Larus to identify and train candidates to participate in Public Policy Meetings related to the RIRS, and possibily ICANN. He further stated that while the Larus Foundation is related by common ownership to Larus Cloud Service, it is a separate not-for-profit organization trying to build the ‘brain trust’ participating in address policy.

ARIN 43 Policy Discussions

AM asked how the extensive number of policy discussions would be handled at ARIN 43. SH explained that staff has built flexibility into the agenda, should additional policy discussion blocks be required, and those additional discussions will be handled as has been customarily done at other meetings.

Conformance Statements

RS noted that the two new recommended draft policies needed to have conformance statements drafted and circulated.

AC Slack Channel Communications

The Chair asked that the Council utilize the their ARIN Slack channel for travel-related coordination with regard to ARIN 43.

21. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:03 p.m. EST. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by LS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.