Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 20 February 2020 [Archived]

via Teleconference

Attendees:

• Tina Morris, Chair (TM)
• Leif Sawyer, Vice Chair (LS)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• Kat Hunter (KH)
• Alyssa Moore (AM)
• Anita Nikolich (AN)
• Amy Potter (AP)
• Joe Provo (JP)
• Kerrie Richards (KR)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• Alicia Trotman (AT)
• Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela, (MA) Deputy General Counsel
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Sean Hopkins, (SH) Policy Analyst
• Richard Jimmerson, (COO) Chief Operating Officer
• Lisa Liedel, (LL) Director - Registration Services
• Therese Simcox, Scribe
• John Sweeting, (CCO) Chief Customer Officer

Regrets:

• Owen DeLong
• Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.
• Chris Tacit
• Alison Wood

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EST. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged regrets received.

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 CW, and seconded by KR, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 24 January 2020, as written.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

KH stated that the staff and legal review was received and was in line with the intent of the policy, but changes in Section 8 are necessary. Due to the extent of these changes, she preferred it be moved back to Draft Policy status and sent back to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) for community feedback. Then, it can be moved forward again to Recommended Draft Policy status. The Chair stated that staff is aware of this policy’s need for revision.

It was moved by KH, and seconded by LS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4. IPv4 Request Requirements’ back to Draft Policy status based on extensive changes from community feedback received.”

The Chair called for comments. CW asked if another staff and legal review will be necessary after the changes are made. The Chair stated that another staff and legal would be necessary.

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

5. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M&A

KR stated that she and RS revised the text and posted the language to the PPML to receive feedback. Once feedback is received, they will take the next steps. No action for a last call period at this time.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M&A Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion

JP stated that the new language that was presented at ARIN 44 changed after discussions and was posted to the PPML. That text is stable. He noted only one comment that was received, neither negative nor positive, which was more of an observation. JP stated that he is requesting an updated staff and legal review at this time, questioning if the policy should be moved forward due to the variance in POC handling.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-20: Harmonization of Maximum Allocation Requirements under Sections 4.1.8 (ARIN Waitlist) and 4.2.2 (Initial Allocation to ISPs)

CW stated that this policy has support on the PPML, and that the staff and legal review was received with no issues.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2019-20: Harmonization of Maximum Allocation Requirements under Sections 4.1.8 (ARIN Waitlist) and 4.2.2 (Initial Allocation to ISPs)’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

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

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment

KR stated that she and OD will meet to go through the comments received, and provide an update in the next few days to the AC’s mailing list.

9. ARIN-Prop-282: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

AM stated that she, AN, the Chair, and the President had a call last week discussing problem statement concerns and what element folks had an issue with in the emergency policy currently in place. They found three different parameters that were affected: 1) limited blocks issued to /22; 2) limit on total IP holdings of eligible parties from the waitlist; and, 3) ineligibility for transfers for 6 months. By grandfathering the organizations, the total IP holdings should be increased, and the size of blocks may be increased as well. AM stated that she and AN drafted language and are awaiting review and feedback. She suggested that the proposal be left as-is on the docket, or can be moved to Draft Policy status. If so, she asked should it be moved as written, or change the language immediately?

AD stated that he was in support of moving it to Draft Policy status and then changing the text immediately afterwards, but not before.

AT suggested waiting for feedback and leaving it in Proposal status until that time. She suggested that once it is reviewed, edit the text and move it forward.

The Chair stated for clarity that proposals can be moved forward to Draft Policy status and edited as draft policies.

The President stated that the AC needs to determine the problem being solved, as that will effect both the policy language and the rationale. There were parties already approved and on the waitlist when the waitlist was reopened for issuance. A problem statement that proposes that those parties should have each been issued small allocations as they were already approved, i.e. grandfathering them in, would be relatively straightforward. If so, there are 37 organizations that were known on the list. If the community were to adopt such a policy, ARIN could allow those organizations to request, and be issued, a small amount of resources under the new policy’s maximum size constraint. ARIN would not need to requalify them since they were previously qualified on the waitlist.

The Chair noted that if the orgs had /22s, they would be qualified to receive more. The President responded that the problem statement needs to be clear about what is being addressed. If it is grandfathering those who were on the waitlist as a matter of equity, then one can argue that they were already approved to receive some allocation, just like those previously issued space from the waitlist. However, it is harder to argue that those organizations who were on the waitlist also be able to receive larger than the new maximum, since being on the waitlist does not assure any particular size block will be issued. The authors appear to want more than just being grandfathered in, and want a policy change to a potentially different policy than when the waitlist was reopened. The President cautioned the AC to think of the problem definition that will shape what they are trying to accomplish. The Chair thanked the proposal shepherds, noting it is a more challenging issue.

10. ARIN-Prop-283: Clarify Holdings Restriction for Section 4.1.8 Waitlist Entries

KH stated that the problem statement is clear, and the proposal can be moved forward. KH noted that AD had posted to the AC’s mailing list if this proposal would not need to be a draft policy, but rather it is an editorial change.

CW stated that he agreed it was an editorial change codifying current practice. The Chair was comfortable with it as an editorial change as well.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-283: Clarify Holdings Restriction for Section 4.1.8 Waitlist Entries’ as an editorial change.”

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

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

11. ARIN-Prop-284: Clarify Holding Period for Resources Received via 4.1.8 Waitlist

AT stated that this proposal meets the Policy Development Process (PDP) requirements to be moved forward.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-284: Clarify Holding Period for Resources Received via 4.1.8 Waitlist’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

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

12. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

Update of AC Working Groups (WG)

The Chair stated that SH is setting up Doodle polls for teleconferences for all three working groups. The Chair hoped to kick off the calls next week for the working groups (NRPM Clean-up WG; PDP Improvements WG; and, Policy Experience Report WG).

Travel and Expense Reports

The Chair reminded the Council to please send in expense reports from the AC’s January Face-to-Face Meeting. She also reminded the Council to work with staff on travel for ARIN 45 Public Policy Meeting in April to be held in Louisville, KY.

Fellowship Selection Committee

SH stated that the Committee is being seated, and is looking for AC volunteers. He further noted that the same is taking place for the Grant Selection Committee. The Chair encouraged AC members to volunteer.

Updating Biographies

AP stated that she recently accepted a new position. RS also stated that he accepted a position at another firm working in the cyber area. The Chair asked that they both update their biographies, along with any other members who have had any changes.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:38 p.m. EST. RS moved to adjourn, seconded by AT. The meeting adjourned with no objections.