Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 June 2020 [Archived]

via Teleconference

Attendees:

• Tina Morris, Chair (TM)
• Leif Sawyer, Vice Chair (LS)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• Kat Hunter (KH)
• Alyssa Moore (AM)
• Anita Nikolich (AN)
• Amy Potter (AP)
• Joe Provo (JP)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• Chris Tacit (CT)
• Alicia Trotman (AT)
• Alison Wood (AW)
• 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

ARIN General Counsel:

• Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.

Regrets:

• Kerrie Richards

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged regrets from KR who is on a leave of absence.

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 RS, and seconded by CT, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 21 May 2020, as written.”

The Chair called for any 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 feedback at ARIN 45 was clear, with positive support. The Chair stated that, for this policy, during the ARIN 45 virtual Public Policy Meeting (PPM) there were 108 in attendance, 56 in favor, and one against. KH indicated her intent to move the policy to last call.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements’ to Last Call.”

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

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

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

RS stated that his intention is to incorporate staff feedback for one additional change, and submit the text to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). He stated that he would move the policy to last call at the next AC meeting. The Chair stated that, for this policy, during the ARIN 45 virtual PPM there were 108 in attendance, 44 in favor, and two against.

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

JP stated that the shepherds were able to align this text with the previous one in terms of scheduling, and that it was good to see both sides presented at the PPM. He noted that there were no issues raised and there was positive feedback. The Chair stated that, for this policy, during the ARIN 45 virtual PPM there were 106 in attendance, 46 in favor, and none against. JP believed those numbers represented good support for the policy.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-12: M&A Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion’ to Last Call.”

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

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

7. Recommended 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)

The Chair stated that, for this policy, during the ARIN 45 virtual PPM there were 111 in attendance, 49 in favor, and two against. CW stated that he believed there was sufficient consensus at the PPM, and indicated his intent to move the policy forward.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended 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 Last Call.”

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

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

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

The Chair stated that, for this policy, during the ARIN 45 virtual PPM there were 99 in attendance, 38 in favor, and three against. OD stated that there was generally positive support for the policy, and noted that it was well supported on PPML

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for any comments.

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

9. Draft Policy ARIN 2020-1: Clarify Holding Period for Resources Received via 4.1.8 Waitlist

During the ARIN 45 virtual PPM, it was asked “On balance, does the community believe that the creation of the proposed exception would result in a material risk of fraud?” There were 99 in attendance. 17 replied yes, and 30 replied no. CT stated that this concern expressed the possibility of fraudulent behavior, however he believed the reality of the issue is that the people who want to engage in that behavior will do so. Merely omitting the exception will not dissuade behavior, but it can reduce the accuracy of the registry. Given that overall feeling, although it was not the majority, CT stated that he spoke with the co-shepherd of this policy, and she was in agreement to move the policy forward.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN 2020-1: Clarify Holding Period for Resources Received via 4.1.8 Waitlist’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. CT noted that it is ultimately the Board’s assessment or risk that will determine this issue, but an accurate registry is a good policy goal to pursue. OD asked if a staff and legal review had been conducted. It was found that a staff and legal review had not yet been conducted. The Chair noted that this review will need to be conducted before the policy could move forward. She and CT thanked OD for pointing this out.

The motion was withdrawn with all in agreement. CT asked the Chair to request a staff and legal review. The Chair acknowledged the request.

AD asked CT if the shepherds considered a smaller amount of time for receiving, via the waitlist, M&A transfers. CT stated that the idea was raised, but believed that it would create a different delay and not solve the registry problem. AD replied that he believed it was something to consider and was happy to raise it on the PPML. CT agreed. The Chair asked AD if an M&A transfer is requested, would it be reduced from 5 years to something shorter? AD replied that if an organization received space via the waitlist and then requested a transfer, the transfer would not be processed for that time period.

RS stated that he would be inclined, in the interest of the registry, to process an M&A transfer without regard to a holding period, but still hold 5 years. The Chair agreed noting that the personal holding period would carry through, but updates would be immediate. CT agreed.

10. Draft Policy ARIN 2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

AM stated that productive discussion took place during ARIN 45, but the policy is not close to reaching consensus as there are many differing opinions on the policy. The text will need to be reposted to the PPML for more discussion on changes to the text in order to reach a consensus. The Chair believed that the discussion had was valuable, and that the policy is making headway.

11. Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3: IPv6 Nano Allocations

It was noted that during the ARIN 45 PPM, it was asked “Do you want the AC to continue working on this draft?” There were 100 in attendance. 33 replied yes, and 15 replied no. AD stated that there was an online discussion during ARIN 45, and that the community supports moving this policy forward. Based on that, and the staff and legal review, the plan is to update the text to incorporate the staff’s recommended changes. At a future date before ARIN 46, the intent is to move it to recommended draft status.

OD stated that he liked the idea of addressing the issue through the ARIN fee structure, rather than through policy. He is hoping that the Board will consider this, in the meantime. OD noted he is in favor of the policy as it currently stands, but if a way can be found to address it in the fee structure, it would be preferable. AD agreed, but stated that until the Board takes action, we continue this course. The Chair agreed noting that there is plenty of time before it the policy will be adopted.

It was asked if any formal request to the Board for resolving this issue in fee structure had been made. The Chair replied that it is out of scope for the AC to do so. She stated that it can be done through the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP).

The President replied that by putting the suggestion through the ACSP, it will be more formally tracked, but noted that there are several fee changes that have been queuing up for the Board in August, so it will be discussed in any case. The President stated that this should not dissuade anyone from submitting the suggestion via the ACSP.

12. ARIN-Edit-2020-4: Clarification of Reference to 8.2 in 8.3

It was noted that this Edit is under community review, and that the review period closes on June 26, 2020. AT stated that there is no update at this time.

13. ARIN-Prop-288: Clarify and Update Requirements for Allocations to Downstream Customers

KH stated that she has worked with the authors and noted that the policy statement and scope is in line and well written. She stated that this proposal was to be moved as an editorial change, but there is a lot of text to be changed. She stated that would like the text to go through as a draft policy to make sure that members and downstream customers are not impacted. KH stated that since RFC 2070 supersedes RFC 2050, the concern is that the text may still reference an obsolete RFC.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-288: Clarify and Update Requirements for Allocations to Downstream Customers’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for any comments. The Chair thanked KH for her thought and consideration on the policy. SH stated that if the text is moved to draft policy status and work on it ensues before ARIN 46, but community feedback is received indicating that it should be an editorial change, the AC can move it to editorial status at the next regularly scheduled AC meeting. The Chair thanked SH for the guidance.

CW stated that this proposal is a work product of the Policy Experience Report Working Group, and it was found that it referenced an obsolete RFC. RFC 2070’s utilization requirement should be determined by RIRs directly. For this reason, we are replacing the reference to the RFC to the utilization metric. CW believed that the proposal should not be editorial change.

OD asked if the concern is that the utilization requirement is being re-codified in the text, or to something that already exists? OD noted that there is ARIN policy in place that supersedes RFC 2050. CW replied that the goal of this new text is to replace reference to RFC 2050 to a requirement in section 4.3.3. with regard to utilization in 24 months. CW read the pertinent text in RFC 2050 to the Council. He explained that the RFC reference is superseded in this new policy.

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

14. ARIN-Prop-289: Allowance for IPv4 Allocation “Swap” Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers and 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers

OD stated that the proposal has a clear problem statement and is in scope.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-289: Allowance for IPv4 Allocation “Swap” Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers and 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers’ as a Draft Policy.”

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

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

15. ARIN-Prop-290: 4.4 gTLD Micro-Allocation Clarification

AT stated that the problem statement needs to reflect the full original text. She stated that the intent is to move the proposal forward so that the AC can edit the statement.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-290: 4.4 gTLD Micro-Allocation Clarification’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for any comments. It was asked if a change needs to be made to the policy statement referencing the section that is being modified or added. The Chair replied affirmatively.

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

16. ARIN 45 Virtual Meeting Update

The Chair thanked everyone for participating. She stated that the meeting went extremely well, and asked the AC to fill out the post-meeting surveys for staff.

The President stated that it would be beneficial to get the AC’s collective view on whether they see any problem with conducting ARIN 46 in a similar manner. He asked in particular if it poses any problems to hold two consecutive ARIN meetings virtually, if it is decided to do so.

The Chair stated that there was more engagement than she had expected, noting that the meeting was very well-attended with great participation. She would rather have had the meeting in person, but believed the virtual meeting was a sufficient substitute.

KH agreed and stated that the chat functionality was really nice in lieu of hallway discussions. It was a good way for folks who do not talk all the time to communicate with like-minded people. She stated that it was great to have chat as another sidebar avenue for more involvement. KH voiced concern with regard to the ARIN elections in October. She asked how the candidates will be able to talk to the members, as she believed it was a big disadvantage for those not on the AC to be part of the AC. KH asked if there is a way for the community to be able to learn about the candidates. She pointed out that AT has a video that is a great representation of herself as candidate. KH asked if folks can do that and have people ask them questions to make up for missing discussions.

The President agreed with KH, noting the election aspects are good points. He stated that there was a candidate forum last year, and it would be needed this year in a virtual format. The Chair agreed that it was a critical aspect.

JP pointed out that there is usually a larger number of attendees in October. He wondered if a chat channel would be overwhelmed by this, and was concerned with newcomer’s participation. He stated that he has done Fellowship mentoring for every meeting and will miss the ability to introduce newcomers and walk them through to topics. He raised this as a possible concern. The Chair agreed that it would be good to have a newcomer session in October.

The Chair stated that conference fatigue is of concern with the NANOG meeting being held in the same week.

OD believed that a virtual meeting was not an ideal substitute, but if given a choice between not holding a meeting and holding one, a virtual meeting is preferable to not meeting at all. He stated that the virtual PPM worked better than he had expected, but the lack of hallway discussions, and the inability for candidates to mingle with members, is a disadvantage. The lack of mentorship opportunities is suboptimal, and an in-person meeting should be held if possible.

AD noted, to the Chair’s earlier point, that if both NANOG and ARIN are online in October, adjusting the calendar to avoid conference fatigue should be considered.

RS acknowledged the opinions to hold an in-person meeting, but was amenable to a virtual meeting if it works really well. He was sensitized to accessibility issues working in the past with disabled people. He asked to consider raising the number of remote participants through chat and streaming slides to Zoom for a whole user experience.

CT agreed with the comments that is it better to hold a meeting virtually than not at all. He suggested to try to institute chatrooms even at in-person meetings, as that it may create hallway discussions that may not otherwise take place.

The Chair thanked the Council for the constructive feedback. She stated that the virtual meeting was a great first time ‘out of the gate’. She noted the need to address the Nomination Committee, as the AC election portion may not be sufficient and needs to be considered.

AT stated that she missed the ARIN swag. She stated that it is a great conversation starter, and there should be some sort of souvenir from the meeting, whether it be held virtually or in-person. The Chair agreed.

17. AC WG NRPM Clean Up Update

JP stated that the WG decided how to slice the edits they have, and are closing in on Section 4 to keep the path editorial. There has been editorial work in Section 4, and also editorial updates in other sections. JP gave kudos to CT as he is doing a lot of the work on this task.

18. AC WG PDP Improvements Update

AP stated that an email was sent to the AC for feedback on the completed section. She thanked OD for his feedback and asked if others have any comments to please provide them in the next week. She stated the WG will incorporate any edits and move forward with next section to provide that to the AC for feedback as well.

19. AC WG Policy Experience Report (PER) Update

CW stated that the WG has submitted three proposals addressing issues as the work product, and they were put on the AC’s docket at this meeting. The WG received the most recent PER, which will be generated 4 times a year. They will have results of that review at their next meeting. CW thanked LL for her input on the PER.

20. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. There were no further items.

21. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:05 p.m. EDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by CW. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.

Exhibits

• “Exhibit A - Policy Experience Report”