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

via Teleconference

Attendees:

• Tina Morris, Chair (TM)
• Leif Sawyer, Vice Chair (LS)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• Kat Hunter (KH)
• 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:

• Alyssa Moore
• Kerrie Richards

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged that Ms. Nikolich would be delayed, and that regrets had been sent by Ms. Moore and Ms. Richards.

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

The Chair called for a motion to approve the Minutes.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 16 July 2020, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Informational Item – Ratification of Policies

The Chair stated that at their meeting on July 29, 2020, the ARIN Board of Trustees ratified the following policies recommended by the ARIN Advisory Council:

• ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements
• ARIN-2019-12: M&A Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion
• ARIN-2019-20: Harmonization of Maximum Allocation Requirements under Sections 4.1.8. (ARIN Waitlist) and 4.2.2 (Initial Allocation to ISPs)
• ARIN-2019-21: Reserved Pool Replenishment
• ARIN-Edit-2020-4: Clarification of Reference to 8.2 in 8.3

Ms. Nikolich joined the call at this time. (4:09 p.m. EDT)

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

RS stated that he had wanted to ensure that the community had ample opportunity to comment on the edit from the staff and legal review. He posted the edit a month ago and there have been no comments.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M&A’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. CW stated, for clarity, that the status on this agenda for this policy reads “RDP under revision” and wanted to ensure it was no longer being revised. RS stated that the only change was merely an editorial one arising from the version presented at ARIN 45. The President pointed out that any substantial change would push the policy back, but this is not a substantial change. CW thanked them for the explanation.

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

The Chair thanked RS for all of his work on this policy as mostly the sole policy shepherd.

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

CT stated that there has been no change made to this policy, nor any activity on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). Discussion has been fostered twice on the PPML. The Chair asked CT what the next steps were for the policy. CT replied it is awaiting presentation at ARIN 46 in October.

7. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3: IPv6 Nano Allocations

AD stated that there has been feedback from the PPML which lead to the text being updated to clarify that people with fully returned resources would not be subject to penalty, but that a partial return is unacceptable under this policy. The revised text was to the PPML on August 19, with no comments thus far. AD stated this policy would be presented to the community for further discussion at ARIN 46.

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

AN stated that the text was posted to the PPML and received feedback with an overwhelmingly 18 to 5 positive response. She stated that she would like to request a staff and legal review at this point. The Chair acknowledged the request.

OD stated that it was important to consider the context of the policy. He noted that a relatively small vocal group of folks recruited a lot of people to join in and support their cause. However, he was unsure of how much general support across the wider community it represented. OD stated that he was not in favor of the policy himself, but was pleased that the debate it taking place. He believed that the AC made the right call and, that as unfair as the options were, it was carefully discussed and deliberated. He believed it would be unfair to more people at this point, if it were to become policy.

CW agreed that the AC made best call it had at the time, with much to sort through in a short amount of time. He stated that he had expected this to happen, and that he too did not support the policy. He noted that this is an emergency policy and that the community will have limited input. CW stated that should there be items that the community does not support, they can be corrected through the Policy Development Process (PDP). CW stated he foresees that happening with this policy. He believed that the show of hands during ARIN 46 will provide a better indication of the community’s support or lack thereof.

The Chair agreed with comments from OD and CW, and noted that having a staff and legal review conducted will provide more information that will lead to a more informed discussion for the community.

RS stated that he too agreed that the staff and legal review will bring up issues the AC has not considered, and he believed that the AC chose the best choice out of a series of subpar choices. RS also echoed OD’s concern with regard to the policy being more unfair to more people; and, he looks forward to hearing more from the community on the PPML and during the ARIN 46 Public Policy Meeting (PPM). RS stated he was not sanguine on the policy, but was willing to be convinced on the narrative by the broader community.

The President stated that it was an interesting situation and asked the AC to consider the guidance from the PDP. He stated that, in general, we try to serve the entire community, and policy changes often solve a perceived problem that only one segment of the community faces. The PDP is clear that support by the community may be shown only by a subset of the community, as long as it is substantially more support than opposition among those participating. Any specific concerns raised have been well weighed and considered. If there is substantial criticism, it will be up to the AC to consider the concerns raised and determine if they can be adequately addressed.

The Chair noted that currently the AC is in an information-gathering mode, and that the policy has not been fully debated. The staff and legal review will move the policy to the point of debate.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2020-5: Clarify and Update Requirements for Allocations to Downstream Customers

KH stated that the text has been posted to the PPML with fairly positive feedback. Additional discussion from the staff and legal review was generated and was straightforward with no concerns. KH stated that she does not anticipate the policy changing at this point, and was comfortable with moving it forward. She stated the policy is fair, impartial, and technically sound.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2020-05: Clarify and Update Requirements for Allocations to Downstream Customers’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2020-6: Allowance for IPv4 Allocation “Swap” Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers and 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers

OD stated that there has been no change to the policy text and it is ready to move forward. He noted that the staff and legal review resulted in no concerns.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2020-6: Allowance for IPv4 Allocation “Swap” Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers and 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. CW stated, as the author, that this policy was derived from the Policy Experience Report Working Group (PERWG). The WG took the same language and added it to two different sections, as we could not see a way to make one section a pointer to the other. CW stated that if anyone had suggestions on how to better phrase it and make it more efficient, to please let him know.

AD stated that his review of the comments received on the PPML showed no support at this point in time. He stated that he had raised an issue on the AC’s list about the policy after the staff and legal review was conducted, asking hypothetical questions around using the waitlist to do a ‘swap’. He believed the text would be best served by removing the waitlist option from it, and he did not support a motion at this time.

OD stated that he was comfortable with not moving the policy forward.

AP stated that she would like to see further community feedback. She did not believe there had been enough feedback shown on the PPML.

OD withdrew motion stating he would foster more discussion on the PPML.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-Allocation Clarification

JP stated that he was reviewing the text and that there has been neither positive nor negative feedback on the PPML. He stated he will foster more discussion on the PPML.

12. ARIN-Prop-291: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee

JP stated that the policy shepherds reviewed the proposal, and noted it is short and in scope.

It was moved by JP and seconded by CW that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-291: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. No comments.

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

13. ARIN 46 Meeting Update

The President provided an update to the AC noting that the dates of the election were changed, as the Bylaws presume the policy portion and members meeting are co-joined. The ARIN 46 PPM and Member’s Meeting will be separated, but this is not problematic with regard to moving the dates for aspects of the elections. The President also noted that the draft schedules for the sessions are being developed, and he will be discussing the format with the Board and AC Chairs.

The President asked about the desire for an AC Candidate Forum, and was this more important than live candidate speeches. The Chair believed there would not be a lot of folks watching recorded speeches. She pointed out that an AC Candidate Forum has never been held, therefore she had no way to know which would be more beneficial.

The President stated, as a better estimate of the amount of time we have on the agenda becomes clear, to please let staff know of any ideas the AC may have. He noted that great feedback was received on the Board Candidate Forum held during ARIN 45, and acknowledged that ARIN has not held an AC Candidate Forum. The Chair suggested scheduled speeches during lunch or if policy discussion ends early. She stated it would be good to know the AC members thoughts on an AC Candidate Forum, and if anyone has views they can send them to SH.

14. AC WG NRPM Clean Up Update

JP stated that momentum was lost on this task, due to other commitments, but that the first editorial will be out to CT in the coming week. The second one will be shortly thereafter.

15. AC WG PDP Improvements Update

AP stated that the group has a draft of more sections which will be circulated next week to the AC for review.

16. AC WG Policy Experience Report (PER) Update

CW stated that he is monitoring four proposals that the group has as work-products, and they are working on another one to address the most recent PER. The group meets monthly, and he anticipated that it will have another policy by the next AC meeting.

17. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

• Review Proposed Change to AC Standing Rules. (Exhibit A) The AC needs to review and approve the proposed change to their Standing Rules for ARIN Board approval. The President stated that this amendment adds language that gives the AC the option, unless otherwise agreed, to hold a meeting per the default or at another time.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the AC Standing Rules as amended, and recommends them to the ARIN Board of Trustees for approval.”

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

The motion carried with no objections.

• AC Member Change in Job. OD stated that he recently became the Director of Security at his day job, and therefore is behind on AC tasks as he gets up to speed in his new role. The AC congratulated OD on the position, and the Chair also requested that he update his biography with staff.
• ARIN General Counsel. The President gave a confidential update on the ARIN General Counsel search.
• PDP Procedures. SH reminded the AC that the ARIN 46 PPM will be held on 14 October, and therefore text for RDPs freezes on 14 September.

18. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:53 p.m. EDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by JP. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.