Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 16 November 2023

Teleconference

Attendees:

Leif Sawyer, Chair (LS)
Kat Hunter, Vice Chair (KH)
Doug Camin (DC)
Gerry George (GG)
Brian Jones (BJ)
Kendrick Knowles (KK)
Amy Potter (AP)
Gus Reese (GR)
Chris Tacit (CT)
Alicia Trotman (AT)
Matthew Wilder (MW)
Alison Wood (AW)
Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

Michael Abejuela, General Counsel
Eddie Diego, (ED) Policy Analyst
Jenny Fulmer, (JF) Staff Attorney
Richard Jimmerson, Chief Operating Officer
Lisa Liedel, Director, Registration Services
Therese Simcox, Sr. E.A./Scribe
John Sweeting, Chief Customer Officer

Regrets:

Andrew Dul
Anita Nikolich

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. ET. The presence of a quorum was noted.

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

(Exhibit A)

The Chair called for any comments on the October 20, 2023, AC Minutes for approval. There were no comments. The AC October 20 Minutes were approved with no objections.

4. Draft Policy ARIN 2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update.

DC stated that there are no updates at this time. The policy shepherds are awaiting a new proposal to come in that will impact this draft policy. They will have additional follow-up on the policy.

5. Draft Policy ARIN 2023-1 Retire 4.2.1.4 Slow Start.

BJ stated that the staff and legal review was received on 6 November and was a clean review.

It was moved by BJ and seconded by DC that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN 2023-1 Retire 4.2.1.4 Slow Start’ 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.

6. Draft Policy ARIN 2023-2: /26 initial IPv4 allocation for IXPs.

MW stated that there have been no major changes to the policy and a staff and legal review had been requested. He stated he was looking forward to seeing any comments on the technical implementation for reverse DNS for assignments smaller than a /24. He noted that some conversations were had with community members around ISPs, and he was monitoring comments on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML).

The CCO stated that the legal team was encountering a challenge with providing legal comments on a policy that did not seem to be ‘fully baked’. He asked if the language for this policy that was submitted for the staff and legal review is in final form and if it is the language that is planned to be moved to recommended draft policy status based on input from the review – once the review is conducted. He stated that the shepherds should wait to request a formal staff and legal review until the draft policy is ready to be moved forward in the process.

The CCO further noted that the shepherds can ask for input outside of a staff and legal review at any time. The passing of the policy could take two years to implement due to required development time that would be needed, and if the other RIRs can support it. For the staff and legal review, staff needs to know if the language is in its final form.

MW thanked the CCO for the useful feedback and agreed that the text is not in final form nor is it ready to be advanced to recommended draft policy status. The CCO stated that the shepherds could ask staff for input at any time, and it does not have to officially be through a staff and legal review request. Legal has a challenging time making a legal assessment on any draft policy language that is still changing and is not in its final form. The Policy Analyst will send the staff and legal review request back with answers from staff in the interim. The policy shepherds agreed and thanked him.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2023-4: Modernization of Registration Requirements.

AT stated that a staff and legal review was received. The review contained concern on a statement regarding ‘applicable law’ and that it be removed as the wording can be ambiguous and inconsistent. AT noted the timeline was moved to 90 days and was put on the AC’s Docket. She noted no action at this time.

The CCO noted, regarding adding the wording on applicable law, that it is already stated that everything in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) has to follow applicable law.

CT asked how to make it clear in the NRPM that it is subject to all applicable laws. The Staff Attorney clarified that it is stated in Section 1 of the Policy Development Process (PDP). CT suggested considering a policy that makes it a global statement in the NRPM to make it clear, as community members will look to the NRPM instead of the PDP.

8. ARIN-2023-5: Clean-up of NRPM Sections 4.3.4, 4.4, 4.10 and 6.10.1.

AW stated that the AC voted to move to this policy to recommended draft policy status, and there have been no updates since, and no further updates found on the PPML. They are awaiting more discussion. She stated her intent to move the policy to Last Call.

It was moved by AW and seconded by CT that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2023-5: Clean-up of NRPM Sections 4.3.4, 4.4, 4.10 and 6.10.1’ to Last Call.”

The Vice Chair noted that, according to the PDP, this policy has to wait until the AC’s next in-person meeting (January 2024). AW acknowledged, and withdrew the motion to advance to Last Call. The Vice Chair seconded the motion on the table to withdraw.

The motion was withdrawn with no objections.

9. ARIN-2023-6: ARIN Waitlist Qualification.

AT stated that a note was sent this week to the PPML for comment on this policy as no feedback has been received. The note asked if the Community agreed with the policy and with AD’s previous comment on the policy. There have been no comments to date.

10. ARIN-2023-7: Clarification of NRPM Sections 4.5 and 6.11 Multiple Discrete Networks and the addition of new Section 2.18 Organizational Identifier (Org ID).

CW stated that feedback at ARIN 52 was somewhat positive, but there was a suggestion to separate the ORG ID section from the policy and propose it as a new policy defining ‘ORG ID’. CW stated that he intends to do so in the next week or two. The Chair believed it would clarify the matter.

11. ARIN-prop-326: Replace Specified Transfers with Monthly Single-Price Auction.

KK stated that there is no action at this time on this policy. He explained that the policy shepherds believed it was out of scope at first glance. He communicated with the author, and found that the language suggested going through the PDP after being rejected from the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP). The shepherds are working with the author on clarifying the problem statement, but it still seems out of scope. KK asked for thoughts on the proposal.

MW agreed the language seems outside scope and is more of a discussion at a higher level, and that the ACSP seemed a suitable avenue to him.

CW noted that similar proposals have come up before and referenced that a model such as this could affect ARIN’s non-profit status.

AW stated that she is the secondary shepherd on this proposal and agrees that it is not in scope but believed that it is worth the investment of working with the author on the idea and show due diligence.

AP believed that the proposal may be in scope with language clean up, unless legal has concerns.

The Vice Chair took the same approach as AP, but noted to be careful as the language has percentages and money references which are not within the AC’s scope and more of the Board’s purview. She asked if there is a way to find out why it was fully rejected from the ACSP process and to have discussions with the author about it. AW responded that she is trying, but there is not much documentation regarding the rejection. They are working with the author. KK read what was published from the ACSP.

KK stated in addition to working with the author, he would also work with staff as the text mentions services and fees that ARIN provides.

The COO stated that often times suggestions are submitted and accepted through the ACSP, but that some suggestions must be rejected as out-of-scope for that process. Although he did not have the details on hand for this particular case, there must have been sufficient justification to reject the suggestion as out-of-scope. Staff can research and can provide more details if needed.

The CCO stated that he believed that it is because it would be a change to the way ARIN would allocate resources. Pricing and operations would fall to the staff and Board to come up with if the community told ARIN to do so. Operational practices are in our authority, but the Community has to tell us to do so through policy.

The COO stated that he agreed, as the previous ACSP submittal and this new policy proposal clearly states an interest to change or replace policy on how we treat specified transfers. That part of the proposal to replace specified transfers is definitely inside the scope of the PDP. Specified transfers are in the NRPM and staff must follow policy over operational suggestions from the community in all cases. ARIN cannot do anything that conflicts with policy. For these reasons, the policy about changing or eliminating specified transfers is inside the scope of the PDP and outside the scope of ACSP.

The CCO believed it is out of scope as far as stating what to do with fees, but that it is in scope due to proposing a totally different way to issue IPv4 which is a policy issue. If the Community passed it in a policy, then ARIN would have to figure out how to implement it, including fee considerations.

DC agreed and stated he believed it was initially out of scope. Working with the author, from a policy-only perspective, is there a desire in the Community to change the behavior of ARIN? That is a policy question and would be a responsibility of this body. The CCO pointed out that policy needs to be written around management of resources – that is what policy is - not around fees.

MW asked how to disentangle the proposal text to make it a policy. He asked do we disentangle it with the author to bring it in scope and leave the rest with staff? The COO stated they should work with the author to reduce it to an address policy. For example, removing 8.3 and 8.4 specified transfers, and replace it with whatever they are proposing. Further, to ensure it is within scope, remove all references to fees. If a policy passed, then those items would be considered afterwards. The COO stated that they would be addressed in a staff and legal review.

KK thanked them all and stated that he will go back to the author with the information. The Chair looked forward to seeing the future edits.

12. ARIN-prop-327: Reduce 4.18 Maximum Allocation.

GG stated that the policy shepherds have been discussing the proposal and found it to be sound, fair, impartial, and in scope.

It was moved by GG and seconded by BJ that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-prop-327: Reduce 4.18 Maximum Allocation’ as a Draft Policy.”