Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 October 2020 [Archived]

via Zoom Conference

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 (KR)

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged that KR is on extended leave. It was acknowledged that OD would be delayed. The Chair recommended to SH that, going forward, a call with speakers for practice beforehand in relation to ARIN Virtual Public Policy Meetings (PPM) should be planned.

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 AC’s September Minutes.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 17 September 2020, as written.”

The Chair called for any objections. There were none.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Informational Item

The Chair stated that on October 9, 2020, the ARIN Board of Trustees ratified Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M&A.

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

CT stated that this was the second presentation at a PPM (ARIN 46), and it was non-controversial. He noted the community show of hands was 53 to 3 in support of advancing the policy forward. CT stated he considered it significant support, noting a few folks were uncomfortable with the policy. He believed that overall the policy has reasonable support to proceed.

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

6. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN 2019-16

AM stated that support was clear at the PPM, with a community show of hands of 42 to 14. It was pointed out that 26 organizations were affected by this policy, and that 42 showed support in favor of the policy.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2020-2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN 2019-16’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair stated that, personally, she did not support the policy but acknowledged the community’s view.

RS pointed out that the numbers resulting from the poll demonstrated weak support with roughly 3 to 1 in favor. Support was nothing compared to the support shown for the last proposal, or support that is routinely seen for policies to move forward. He did not like the idea of the precedent of setting up special classes of rollback to a certain class of organization, particularly if a smaller one. There is no operational impact on this policy. RS noted that there was never a promise when an organization entered the waitlist; and, he is surprised there is as much space being returned as has been seen. RS stated that he was sufficiently concerned enough that he intended to vote against the policy.

CW stated that he had a substantial change of heart over time from being against the policy to now being in favor. He had previously posted against it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) for many of the same reasons that RS mentioned. CW reiterated that mainly the waitlist has never been guaranteed, and any organization that is dependent on it as part of its business plan is in peril. He believed that this policy is a consequence of that. However, since then a few of his realizations have softened. He pointed out that the policy that rolled back for a subset of members was policy put through as part of an emergency proposal. The AC had discussed it over 3 to 4 hours to come up with the emergency policy to restart the waitlist. The AC was advised if we did not act on it before the next distribution, it would not happen. There was the pressure of time to get it in place and, due to that, he could appreciate that the AC may have gotten some things wrong. CW believed that existing applications should have been allowed to stay in place and not be removed them from the waitlist.

JP followed on to RS’s comments raised that the refuted point in discussions was fairness. He stated that it is in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) that our definition is about policies applying equitably across all existing members; and, the fact that policy has changed to prevent someone from getting on the waitlist is not unfair. The class that gets special treatment is actually going against the principle of fairness. Rolling back is an unfair thing to do to the community.

CT stated that he agreed a policy can change, and that people should not formulate their business plan based on getting anything from the waitlist. However, the 26 organizations identified constitute collateral damage as a result of a change that would not have happened but for fraud by a third-party’s impact on a timeline, and the waitlist was suspended and the subsequent policy change was made on an emergency basis without a lot of community input. This is different from a normal situation where a policy changes in the normal course that affect parties on the waitlist. CT stated he intended to vote in favor of the policy as a matter of fairness.”

AM agreed stating that she did not believe the policy is setting special precedence. She believed it is fixing collateral damage. When the AC discussed the policy at length, the Council examined that it may not be the right thing to do, and that they can make amendments to the policy. This is one of those amendments. She pointed out that this policy will be in the NRPM for only a brief period of time as the requests are met and able to be distributed. AM stated she will vote in favor of the policy.

The President reviewed the timeline, stating that when ARIN had evidence of fraudulent requests via the waiting list, we promptly acted to make sure we provided stewardship to resources and that led to this sequence of events. The AC was advised to think clearly when making policy, as application of policy is becoming more litigious. In general, when requesting resources, they are allocated by the current policies that have been implemented. When resources are received, we do not generally apply retroactively and, for example, claw-back resources. The President advised the AC to make clear any unusual edge conditions in future policy. The waitlist has a particular edge condition - as organizations were already approved per prior criteria to be on the waitlist, we did not specifically consider how those requests should be handled. The precedent is unique in that we do not often have parties processed under one policy but then reviewed again under a revised version. The President stated that he did not lean either way. He advised the AC not to be regretful of where the policy stands presently, but rather to pay more attention to detail with significant transitions. He acknowledged that, as it was, the change was made in an expedited process, and the AC did not have time to consider the edge conditions.

RS asked when the AC considers edge cases and puts them into policy: does that include ones that only persist for short period of time, normal things being approved that have a clear-cut point, or just ones like waiting list changes because requests take months? He posed - How do we document that: in the NRPM for every single thing or can we do this outside of the NRPM?

The President replied that the AC needs to make sure of the implementation path, and understand it. The AC can put any implementation issues into the policy notes.

AW, like CW, stated that she too had a change of heart about the policy, and also agreed with AM and CT’s comments. She noted that there was outrage by the small group affected by this, and that she believed that there was good community support for it. She stated she was in favor of the policy.

The CCO pointed out that most of the blocks obtained from the waitlist that were larger than a /18 were transferred soon after they were received. He noted that there were at least three organizations that received space from the waitlist that tried to process a transfer in less than 12 months and were told they could not do so, as it was under 12 months. Some organizations had transfers processed 13 to 15 months after receiving them from the waitlist, which met policy, but obviously not in line with the intentions of the policy. The actions were taken because the initial policy contained issues in the implementation and the way folks could abuse it. It was not just one bad actor - there was more than one. He further noted that one organization had to return space while attempting to transfer waitlist space. There were several issues resolved by the AC’s action in putting together the new waitlist policy.

OD joined at this time (4:33 p.m. EDT).

The Chair stated that the waitlist had zero promises and has had zero requests, and she supported the AC’s decision on this policy. She pointed out that it was not a case of one case of fraud and the AC panicked; rather, the AC knew it was harsh and stated it multiple times. The community has a path to the resolution, and the AC put many concessions into this policy. She believed the overall risk is minimal.

AD noted there is a /18 barrier in the current policy – a new line is drawn and a number of organizations are not getting space on the list at same time. There are some organizations with larger holdings and they could petition against this and request space. AD stated that he will vote against this policy. AW stated that 11 organizations would have holdings, and noted that AD made a good point.

CT asked the President about how to deal with edge cases. He stated that if we say nothing about when we implement, and whether to apply it or not to the existing requests, does the existing policy apply under that policy even if it changes in meantime? The President answered that he believed that when an organization applies, we use the application until the Board adopts a new policy and we implement it. The CCO added that, in ticket processing, once policy is implemented organizations are approved under the new guidelines immediately.

In response to the comment that more than one bad actor led to the suspension of the waitlist and passage of a new policy on an emergency basis, CT stated that there may have been more than one bad actor, but unless any of the 26 waiting organizations was one of them, they still represent collateral damage. A change to the waiting period is fundamental to make the new policy work, but providing justice for the 26 organizations is a limited impact measure that restores fairness for those organizations.

KH stated that with 2019-1 approved, it was in place to disallow organizations. It is a safeguard from the issues that have previously arisen. She asked how many reinstated organizations will qualify, given the new criteria, that could have been bad actors? The CCO replied that we have not done anything but reserve space to meet the worse outcome using a /22 for this policy. He noted some bad actors got back on the list, and it turned into an emergency to stop it from happening.

The President stated that staff will confirm that applicants are in full compliance with policy, including as-modified. The CCO added that applicants will need to be reapproved, showing they are using what they have at the level they are supposed to be, and that they will use a /22 within 2 years.

KH stated that she would be more comfortable with that. She noted that she was personally on the fence about the policy, but believed it was better to advance it to correct the issue. The Chair noted that a perfect policy will never be made.

OD stated that he did not want to rehash what had been discussed, but he was unconvinced there was community support for this policy; and, the Council knew there would be collateral damage. He stated he would be voting against the policy

AM pointed to AD’s comments regarding those with more than /18 and to the CCO’s comment on bad actors. She stated that there is no visibility into this, but the boundary of a /18 is not arbitrary and reasonable for small organizations, nor for preventing bad actors who have larger holdings. She asked AD that if the policy considered the full gamut of who is removed, would you support it?

AD stated that he believed the AC got it right. He replied that if you expand it to a /18, then do it for the 11 organizations so we do not have to deal with it again.

The motion to move Recommended Draft Policy 2020-2 to last call carried with 10 in favor and four against (OD, AD, JP, RS), via roll call vote.

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

AD stated that this policy has been well received, per the community show of hands at ARIN 46 at 42 to 12. He pointed out that this is as positive a show of support as the first one reviewed. He believed the folks against it want it in a fee schedule rather than in a policy. He noted it support was shown both on the PPML, and at the ARIN 46 PPM.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3: IPv6 Nano Allocations’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

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

KH stated that this policy was well-received, and noted that there was not a lot of discussion on the PPML but what there was of feedback was positive. It was requested to remove the word ‘your’ from the text, which does not change the meaning of the policy; therefore, she made the change during the ARIN 46 PPM.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3: IPv6 Nano Allocations’ to Last Call, with the editorial change made at the ARIN 46 Virtual Public Policy Meeting.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

9. 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 was generally positive feedback thus far, but he will stimulate more discussion on the PPML. He noted progress was being made, and he intends to move the policy to recommended draft status at the next AC meeting. OD noted that he is seeking additional feedback to make changes, if applicable.

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

AT stated that the consensus of the community is for the policy to proceed as-is, but noted that it was a simple change that could have been editorial. She stated her intent to move the policy to recommended draft status. The Chair asked if a staff and legal review had been conducted. AT stated it had not, and therefore requested a review be conducted. The Chair stated she would request a review.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update 4.2.1.2 Annual Renewal Fee

JP stated that the PPM revealed a much stronger signal than PPML feedback received, with regard to the direction of taking the policy further. He intends to provide an updated version of the text to post to the PPML for feedback. Once received, the policy could then advance. CW stated that this text was part of the NRPM clean-up and was eliminated entirely because of that exercise. He noted this is a proposal and should not be used as a reason not to move forward, as there is no guarantee. JP stated that they are part of the NRPM clean-up team, which led to them to act in this way. The community’s signal is to go further and excise 4.2.1 and set it up as a definition.

12. ARIN-Prop-292: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Section 4 and Related Provisions

AP stated this is an extensive clean up, and was reviewed by the NRPM Working Group. She noted that there is a lot of work to do.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Section 4 and Related Provisions’, as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. AP asked that since they used 4.1.1. to move text, could there be a continuation of changing the numbers in the NRPM? The President replied yes, as long as the intent matches the community’s needs. The Chair noted that the policy shepherds are different than the authors on purpose.

The President stated that the Board recently discussed some instances of inconsistent style and formatting within the NRPM. The President let the Board know that there is an AC working group reviewing the NRPM. He noted that the Board would like to make staff available to the AC for editorial work, if the Council desires more eyes to review it, as they believed this is something that may provide more consistent style to the NRPM and offload some drudge work from AC. Staff support is available at any time the AC desires assistance with technical writing, editorial changes, or clean up.

The Chair stated that she is uncomfortable with staff writing policy, but very much appreciated the Board’s support.

JP asked, based on the President’s comments regarding concerns about style, if the AC can request a style guide from staff? The Chair stated that the AC should make it a formal request to staff for a style guide.

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

The Chair stated that she is working with SH on slides for the upcoming ARIN Members Meeting and needs the WG’s accomplishments to include in the slides.

13. AC WG NRPM Clean Up Update

JP stated that there was not much that came out of the ARIN PPM. He stated that the last proposal we discussed was a major effort, and the WG is now digging into Section 6 and other non-editorial clean up that has been received. He also noted that the WG needed to reschedule their standard meetings due to their own needs.

CT stated that Anne-Rachel Inne, Executive Director at ARIN, was at a post-ARIN 46 meeting and pointed out the significance of ensuring that we pay attention to the definitions for the broader Internet governance groups, even though they are not involved in it on a day to day basis. CT stated that this was very helpful, and that he will take it under advisement. He appreciated Ms. Inne’s comments.

14. AC WG PDP Improvements Update

AP stated that there was good feedback received from the table topic zoom discussions. The WG will clean up the text and have a draft of the entire document for distribution.

15. AC WG Policy Experience Report (PER) Update

CW stated that there were not many updates received from last AC meeting. All of their policies are currently in process, and some are currently in last call, as of this meeting. He did not receive a PER at this meeting, and the WG is running low on actionable material. CW noted that there was a break out session after the PPM, but no one attended. One standing item from the WG is on the agenda for the AC’s next meeting; however, at some point, there will be no work until another PER is produced. The Chair acknowledged that the WG’s are ad-hoc groups that may be put on hold from time to time. CW acknowledged that the CCO had stated that the WG will receive a PER when the next one is issued. ARIN’s Registration Services Department did not surface any issues at a level needed to contact the WG.

The President stated that we always have a few items – it is a matter of whether they rise to the level of a PER. We have some nits that could be clarified in policy - not so much changes in policy but rather, editorial changes. For example, the PPML posed the question of what constitutes a compatible inter-RIR transfer policy. There are language changes in Section 8 of the NRPM that would not change the policy, but would make it easier for those in other RIR regions to understand the criteria that we apply in testing for compatibility. The President stated that he will have RSD review this, which may result in notes of items we notice in policy. He asked the Council their thoughts on receiving notes versus a PER from staff.

The Chair believed a published PER to the community would be best for transparency to show any items in which the AC is undertaking.

OD agreed, stating that he would prefer to see a PER be posted publicly. The Chair stated that it did not need to be lengthy – a few slides would be fine. The President acknowledged, and stated it needs to be reviewed before posting to the community.

CW stated that, despite the name of WG, he did not see any reason why the group is limited to items that only come up through PERs, and can take notes independently. The Chair requested a community statement be posted to the PPML asking for any problems of which it wants the WG to work. CW agreed.

RS agreed that it is good to have items in a PER, however unless you forbid the AC and Board from speaking to staff, there will always be conversations. He noted that out of the many proposals he has written, 2007-9 resulted from of that kind of a discussion. He explained that after a casual discussion with staff, it was discovered the matter could be fixed by policy. RS did not want to risk saying it always has to be in a PER, unless it is the best way. Folks should not be discouraged from speaking with staff on items.

The Chair agreed, but noted that she did not want to create an official threshold of which items hit the bar and which do not. She preferred it be made public. RS stated that he understood, but his concern is that he did not want to waste a PDP cycle before acting on matters.

16. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

• AC Member’s End of Term. CW stated that he would not be running for re-election to the AC, but was hopefully intending for it to be only a temporary hiatus. He stated currently he has too many conflicts, but hoped to run again in 2021. He wished the AC good luck in 2021, and wished the AC candidates well. The AC returned the sentiment.

17. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:27 p.m. EDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by LS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.