Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 July 2024

Teleconference

ARIN AC Attendees:

  • Kat Hunter, Chair (KH)
  • Matthew Wilder, Vice Chair (MW)
  • Doug Camin (DC)
  • Matthew Gamble (MG)
  • Gerry George (GG)
  • Elizabeth Goodson (EG)
  • Brian Jones (BJ)
  • Kendrick Knowles (KK)
  • Kaitlyn Pellak (KP)
  • Gus Reese (GR)
  • Leif Sawyer (LS)
  • Daniel Schatte (DS)
  • Alicia Trotman (AT)
  • Alison Wood (AW)
  • Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

  • Eddie Diego, Policy Analyst
  • Jenny Fulmer, Staff Attorney
  • Richard Jimmerson, COO
  • Lisa Liedel, Dir., Registration Services
  • Therese Simcox, Sr. E.A./Scribe

1. Welcome.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:04 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. She noted that AW had requested to discuss item 14. ARIN-prop-336 first, due to a conflict that may have her leave the call early. The Chair stated they would do so.

3. Approval of the Minutes.

(Exhibit A)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the 20 June 2024 Minutes, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

The Chair stated that Item 14 would be discussed at this time.

14. ARIN-prop-336: Remove Outdated Carveout for Community Networks.

AW stated that this text proposes to remove community networks from the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). She noted that the proposal has been reviewed with staff and it was found that there has only been one Community Network approved in the last five years. She noted there is no advantage to having community networks, and stated her intent was to move the proposal to draft policy status noting a fair, impartial, and technically sound problem statement.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-prop-336: Remove Outdated Carveout for Community Networks’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. BJ asked if this proposal spoke only to IPv4. AW replied it is for both IPv4 and IPv6, but has the same allocation requirements for both. There is no real advantage in IPv6 space.

The Chair suggested it may be beneficial to clarify the text to indicate that community networks are no longer used for avoidance of any confusion. AW noted the author speaks to ‘retiring’ community networks, but she agreed and was happy to wordsmith the text. It was agreed to move the proposal to draft policy status and then make the appropriate edits afterward. AW noted that this action will not change the spirit of the text.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

DC stated that there have not been any changes from the prior meeting, and the policy shepherds are awaiting presentation of this policy at ARIN 54.

LS reported an issue at his job had arisen, and asked to discuss his proposal at this time to be able to address the issue. The Chair agreed and stated that Item 8 Draft Policy ARIN 2024-2: WHOIS Data Requirements Policy for Non-Personal Information would be discussed at this time.

8. Draft Policy ARIN 2024-2: WHOIS Data Requirements Policy for Non-Personal Information.

LS stated that updates to the text have been posted to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), and positive feedback has been received. He posted another notice that stated that the feedback will be used to send the policy to recommended draft status. He noted agreement in the community on this announcement. LS stated that the staff and legal review is currently in progress. He stated that the policy shepherds will move the policy forward at the AC’s next meeting.

LS left the meeting at this time (4:14 pm ET).

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2023-7: Clarification of NRPM Sections 4.5 and 6.11 Multiple Discrete Networks.

CW stated that the policy shepherds have revised the language and posted it to the PPML. He noted that there was not much feedback but what was received was positive. He noted this policy is ready for a staff and legal review. The Chair acknowledged.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation.

GG stated that nothing has changed since the last post to the PPML, and that comments received have not reached consensus. Before the next meeting, he will foster discussion once again.

MW stated that, in his opinion, there is a temporal aspect that is not obvious — if we restrict allocations to a /24, then future recipients may not get that space, and it is something to think about. You will encounter different opinions on this as it has a near-term effect. It is worth considering the long-term fairness issue.

GG noted one aspect the community has agreed on is that there should be a way to address those on the list already and factor them in — that is consistent.

CW agreed, stating the need to address those already on the list. He observed that generally speaking, proposals that place additional restrictions on allocations are not well-received by the community.

The Chair suggested that GG may be at a point where the policy is ready to factor those on the list in and see if it garners further feedback from the community. She stated the need to change something or not move the policy forward. GG agreed and stated he will repost to the PPML with regard to those already on the list.

CW noted there have been policies in the past with temporal aspects, and requested if they can be available to look at as an example. The Policy Analyst stated that he will research it.

GR stated that there have not been any changes since the AC’s last meeting and the policy shepherds are awaiting presentation at ARIN 54.

8. Draft Policy ARIN 2024-2: WHOIS Data Requirements Policy for Non-Personal Information.

Previously discussed above.

9. Draft Policy ARIN 2024-4: Internet Exchange Point Definition.

MG stated that the shepherds posted whether the language is enough to avoid abuse to the PPML, but there has not been a definitive answer. He believes the text is fine as currently written.

The Chair stated that MG can email her and the Policy Analyst to request a staff and legal review whenever he is ready. MG acknowledged.

10. Draft Policy ARIN 2024-5: Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation.

DS stated that the policy shepherds continue to work on the text and will meet next week to finalize it before posting it to the PPML.

11. Draft Policy ARIN 2024-6: 6.5.1a Definition Update.

KK stated that there have not been any changes, and the policy shepherds are monitoring feedback from the PPML.

12. Draft Policy ARIN 2024-7: Addition of Definitions for General and Special Purpose IP Addresses.

KP stated that this policy is not contentious and therefore there has not been much discussion on the PPML. She noted one comment was received that the text is harmless but not really needed, and one comment stated it is worthwhile but needs wordsmithing. KP will address the wordsmithing and present the policy at ARIN 54.

13. Draft Policy ARIN 2024-8: Restrict the Largest Initial IPv6 Allocation to /20.

EG stated that many comments have been received from the PPML, and they are split down the middle. She will review the policy to determine if it needs to be abandoned or if changes need to be made. She will continue to monitor feedback.

CW stated that he had participated in discussion on the PPML, and the recurring theme is ‘what are we protecting ourselves from and is it a real problem?’. He believed valid problem statements are in the eyes of the AC, and the community can agree or disagree. He stated to keep in mind that as the AC, we can have a different opinion from the community. Not many in the community agree that the ends justify the means with this policy. It only happened once, and it may be a misplaced concern that if one company can do it, then any company can do it. There can be room for alternative ways other than by lowering the allocation — if they agree it is a valid problem statement. He suggested possibly changing the way blocks get allocated on nibble boundaries once allocations are reached and that may gain consensus.

MW noted that if there is an avenue to build to consensus and if there is persistent opposition, that would be a sign, but it is too soon to determine.

The Chair stated the policy will need to be presented to the community in-person at ARIN 54, and cautioned the AC to pace themselves.

KP agreed, stating that the policy can also be socialized at the joint NANOG meeting. AT agreed, noting that some members of a particular industry may be more verbal, and presenting the policy in-person would provide clarity. It was also suggested to present it as a table topic, to which KP agreed.

14. ARIN-prop-336: Remove outdated carveout for Community Networks.

Previously discussed above.

The Chair noted that a new proposal was received yesterday with AT and DS assigned as primary and secondary policy shepherds respectively.

15. ARIN AC Working Group.

  • Policy Experience Report (PER) Working Group Update. AW stated that the WG met earlier this month. CW submitted the policy proposal that the Chair mentioned was received yesterday, and she was happy AT will be working on it as well. AW also stated that she will be working with other RIRs to see how they are defining ‘leasing’. She stated that the PERWG will meet again in September.

16. Any Other Business.

  • Changes in Employment and Affiliation. No changes reported.
  • NANOG Registration. The Chair noted that NANOG’s early-bird registration ends August 19, and reminded the Council to register. There will be an email from staff on travel dates and information regarding the NANOG/ARIN joint meeting in October.
  • Fellowship Mentors. The Chair noted this item has been resolved with four AC members volunteering (AT, DC, GG, and KK). She thanked them for doing so.

17. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:35 p.m. ET. DC moved to adjourn, seconded by BJ. The meeting adjourned with no objections.

Related