Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 21 October 2022 [Archived]

Hollywood, CA

Attendees:

• Leif Sawyer, Chair (LS)
• Kat Hunter, Vice Chair (KH)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• Brian Jones (BJ)
• Anita Nikolich (AN)
• Amy Potter (AP)
• Joe Provo (JP)
• Alyssa Quinn (AQ)
• Kerrie Richards (KR)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• Chris Tacit (CT)
• Alicia Trotman (AT)
• Matthew Wilder (MW)
• Alison Wood (AW)
• Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela, (MA) General Counsel
• John Curran, (JC) President & CEO
• Jenny Fulmer, (JF) Staff Attorney
• Sean Hopkins, (SH) Senior Policy Analyst
• Richard Jimmerson, (RJ) COO
• Therese Simcox, Scribe, Senior Executive Assistant
• John Sweeting, (CCO) Chief Customer Officer

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:33 p.m. PT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. The COO requested a discussion regarding upcoming training under Any Other Business. The Chair agreed.

3. Approval of the Minutes

(Exhibit A)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 15 September 2022, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2021-7: Make Abuse Contact Useful.

AP stated that feedback on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) contained a wide variety of objections. At the ARIN 50 Members Meeting (ARIN 50) the community did not feel it was a problem that needed to be solved. AP therefore stated she would move to abandon this draft policy.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves to abandon ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2021-7: Make Abuse Contact Useful’.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

The Chair requested a statement from the policy shepherds to be posted to the community.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2021-8: Deprecation of the ‘Autonomous System Originations’ field.

AT stated that based on comments at ARIN 50 she would like to move this policy to recommended draft policy status noting the removal of the AS field effective date from 12/31/24 to 24 months after Board adoption.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2021-8: Deprecation of the ‘Autonomous System Originations’ field’ to Recommended Draft Policy status, with removal of the AS field effective date from 31 December 2024 to 24 months after Board adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

7. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2022-1: MDN Clarification for Qualification.

CW stated that comments during ARIN 50 and on the PPML were in support of this policy. SH stated there were 139 attendees, with 84 in person and 55 remote participants. The straw poll results were 42 in favor and zero against.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2022-1: MDN Clarification for Qualification’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. There are no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

8. Draft Policy ARIN 2022-2: Remove Barrier to BGP Uptake in ASN Policy.

KR stated that the staff and legal review was completed, and the policy shepherds received the changes needing to be made regarding the policy’s intent. These changes have been made. Community feedback received was in support of this policy, and KR believed the policy should be moved forward.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN 2022-2: Remove Barrier to BGP Uptake in ASN Policy’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

The Chair requested a statement from the policy shepherds to be posted to the community.

9. Draft Policy ARIN 2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5.

MW stated that he and the policy co-shepherd discussed this policy noting strong community support to move it forward. He noted there were no changes to the text.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN 2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. With regard to officer attestation, BJ stated he was not in favor of the motion recognizing that there may be no legal merit, but there is still value in raising awareness within the organization through officer attestation.

CW believed the policy makes sense given number of comments received and difficulty in getting the officer’s signature. CW supported the motion. He noted that a potential future policy, if it is recognized that there may be need for attestation, would be to require someone with penalty of perjury authority to prove the allocation, but only if the issue arises due to abuse not seen before.

RS stated that it was his understanding that attestation can be delegated. What we think of as Power of Attorney works here and giving someone a high title in the organization would be able to bind the company. This has been successful in organizations. If that is the case, it is a customer education problem - not a policy issue. He stated he was against the motion. He asked if it can be delegated to someone that has the ability to bind the company.

The CCO explained that it requires a signed document delegating authority in the name of the company. Whomever is authorized to sign it is already delegated in the Registration Services Agreement (RSA) to manage the account. This policy pertains to recipients of transfers, not to the source giving the resources away. An officer needs to be involved regardless, as the requirement is not changed for the entity transferring the resource.

RS acknowledged the CCO’s comments and stated that he withdrew his comment against the motion.

CT stated that in his experience with large organizations, the delegation of attestations to non-officers is often prohibited due to governance restrictions preventing this to manage organizational risk and comply with insurance requirements. While it is possible for ARIN to rely on delegated attestations provided by non-officers, some companies may not agree with that approach.

CW asked, with regard to resource transfers, who ARIN requires to enter into an RSA. The President explained that it can be someone authorized for the organization, but this particular draft policy is about attestation of need by recipients. CW stated that, given that answer, there is a higher level of attestation to making a transaction after the RSA is signed. The President stated there is importance in asking the recipient if they need it and use it operationally in the network; and currently that statement and supporting information is attested to by an officer in the organization.

The CCO explained that when the free pool was low it was put in place to avoid someone building up more resources than needed and it was stated then in Sections 4 to 8 on recipient transfers. It has since been removed from Section 4 but does remain in Section 8.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, and one against (BJ), via roll call vote.

10. ARIN-edit-2022-4: Clean-up of NRPM Sections 2.1 and 2.2

AW stated that this policy had previously been an editorial change, however the staff and legal review was not in agreement as the edits change ‘IP address space’ to ‘Internet number resources’. The community feels it is an editorial change, however staff disagrees. Therefore, AW suggested to convert this draft policy status and work on it.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council converts ‘ARIN-edit-2022-4: Clean-up of NRPM Sections 2.1 and 2.2’, to Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. CT noted that normally when a staff and legal review is conducted, it is to determine how it affects operations or if it creates a fiduciary risk or for risk management. In this case he believed it is the AC’s decision. He asked if the decision would be made based upon the community’s decision, since they believe it is editorial in nature.

SH explained that, per the Policy Development Process (PDP), changes to policy that are purely editorial and non-substantial in nature are outside the scope of the full PDP and may only be made with 30 days public notice followed by the concurrence of both the ARIN Advisory Council and ARIN Board of Trustees that the changes are non-substantial in nature. He further stated that it is within the Council’s purview to decide what is and is not editorial but regardless, the Board will review the history of any editorial change provided to them, including whether all (including staff) agree to its classification.

AW stated that the AC can convert it to draft policy status and 30 days from now the AC can move it to recommended draft policy status with a new staff and legal review. We have community support for the policy, and it can be presented at ARIN 51.

AD noted that the Council has a number of policies on their docket and suggested doing all of Section 2 as one policy.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

The Chair and staff noted the title will change to “Draft Policy 2022-4: Clean-up of NRPM Sections 2.1 and 2.2”.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2022-5: Clean-up of NRPM Section 2.11.

AQ stated that the shepherds are not ready to change this policy’s status until it is posted to the PPML, but the sense of room at ARIN 50 was that it is an editorial change. She stated they will see what feedback is received on the PPML from the community networks participants.

12. Draft Policy ARIN 2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language.

CT stated that there were two comments during ARIN 50 and the PPML that were similar, and the shepherds had agreed to make the changes, which have just been sent to staff so the wording could be updated. CT requested a staff and legal review based on the latest language and the Chair acknowledged his request.

13. Draft Policy ARIN 2022-9: Leasing not Intended.

JP stated that, based on responses on the PPML and ARIN 50, rather than massage language, he would move to abandon this policy and then draft a more streamlined policy.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves to abandon ‘Draft Policy ARIN 2022-9: Leasing not Intended’.”

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

The Chair requested a statement from the policy shepherds to be posted to the community.

14.. ARIN-edit-2022-10: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Sections 2.4 and 2.5.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘ARIN-edit-2022-10: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Sections 2.4 and 2.5’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. AD asked about using the term ‘space’ as it was not in the policy style guide. SH stated that the term ‘addresses’ was previously changed to ‘address’ and noted that the guide was developed as a helpful tool. The word ‘space’ should not be an issue.

The motion carried with 14 in favor and one against (AD), via roll call vote.

SH noted that it is within the Council’s purview to adjust the style guide as they see fit.

15. Draft Policy ARIN 2022-11: Clean-up of NRPM – Introduction of Sections 2.17 and 2.18.

AW stated that good feedback was received after presenting this policy at ARIN 50. She requested a staff and legal review. The Chair acknowledged the request.

Discussion ensued on the use of the definition of ‘IANA’ in the NRPM, with the President pointing out that there is no longer an entity called ‘IANA’, but there are IANA services and parties that act as the IANA service operators. It is not clear we control the term or have a definition that is accurate. The SLA between the RIRs and ICANN does not say ‘IANA’, rather it is now ‘IANA services’.

MW stated that the term “IANA’ appears in Section 10 and in the graphic in Section 2. He stated that there may be other revisions needed. The President stated that the graphic is just an example, and as long as it is defined correctly as ‘IANA function’, it works.

CW stated that maybe the solution is to adopt the suggestion to refer to the IANA website for the meaning. He stated that he was uncomfortable to leave it completely unreferenced.

AW withdrew her request for the staff and legal review.

16. Draft Policy ARIN 2022-12: Direct Allocation Language Update.

RS stated that the next step for the Draft Policy is to have a staff and legal review conducted and requested it. The Chair noted the request.

17. Draft Policy ARIN 2022-13: Clean-up of NRPM Section 2.10.

CW stated that the shepherds plan to wordsmith the policy text for clarity and submit it to the PPML for discussion.

14. Item 14 Revisited.

AD stated, with regard to item 14, ARIN-edit-2022-10: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Sections 2.4 and 2.5, that the AC reconsider the motion. He did not believe that the community had been sent current text during their last community review period.

SH confirmed that AD was correct that there is a difference between the August message sent to the PPML and the policy statement on website.

The shepherds also agreed and stated that they updated the text and meant to resend it to the PPML, but the email to the PPML reflected the prior version. A corrected email needs to be sent out for another review period.

The CCO stated that SH will send the corrected text to the PPML, and after 30 days the AC can move the policy forward for Board adoption.

The motion to move ARIN-edit-2022-10: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Sections 2.4 and 2.5 for Board adoption was withdrawn.

The Chair stated that ARIN-edit-2022-10: Editorial Clean-up of NRPM Sections 2.4 and 2.5 will remain as such and another editorial email with updated language will be sent to the PPML. The AC will be able to move the policy forward to the Board after 30 days, at the AC’s December meeting.

18. ARIN AC Working Groups

• Number Resource Policy Manual Working Group (NRPM WG) Update. JP stated that the WG deferred their last meeting, and that there have been no significant updates to their current work, which was previously discussed.

• Policy Development Process Working Group (PDP WG) Update. AP stated that feedback was received from Board and the WG will meet to discuss it.

• Policy Experience Report Working Group (PER WG) Update. AW stated that the WG is current in their workload and awaiting the next PER.

19. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

• Changes in Employment and Affiliation. There were no changes reported.
• Table Topic Responses. The Chair asked for comments from the Council on the table topic responses from ARN 50. AW stated that the RPKI topic had a great show of participants, and a live demo was requested at the next ARIN meeting showing, from customer’s perspective, how easy RPKI is to implement and maybe have it set up ahead of time. They want to go to ARIN Online and go through quick steps on how to implement it in a hosted registry.
• Advisory Council ARIN Training. The COO stated that training was conducted last year, and will be forthcoming shortly for this year from ARIN’s H.R. Department regarding harassment prevention. The Board recently made the decision to make this training mandatory for all elected volunteers. Further, in the first quarter of next year diversity training will be conducted.
• ARIN 50 Expense Reports. The Chair reminded the AC to submit their expenses in a timely manner. The COO stated that per diem is fully provided which can be used for meals and incidentals. Per diem is covered to include day of departure and day of return. He noted that an updated travel policy will be forthcoming in the beginning of the year.
• Farewell to Outgoing AC Members. The Chair stated that three Council members’ terms are ending as of 12/31/22: Alyssa Quinn, Kerrie Richards, and Joe Provo . The Chair thanked each of them for their contributions to the Council.

20. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 3:09 p.m. PT. CW moved to adjourn, seconded by KH. The meeting adjourned with no objections.