Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 24 January 2014 [Archived]

Reston, VA

Advisory Council Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair (JSw)
• Dan Alexander, Vice Chair (DA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Kevin Blumberg (KB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Stacy Hughes (SH)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Tina Morris (TM)
• Milton Mueller (MM)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• John Springer (JSp)

Minute Taker:

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel

• Einar Bohlin, Senior Policy Analyst

• John Curran, President & CEO

• Nate Davis, COO

• Leslie Nobile, (LN) Dir., Registration Services

ARIN Board:

• Paul Andersen, Vice Chair

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:52 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged that HS had left the room.

2. Agenda Review

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

3. Approval of the Minutes

It was moved by SH, and seconded by KB, that:

“The Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 19 December 2013, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-7: NRPM 4 (IPv4) Policy Cleanup

The Chair noted this draft policy (DP) was formerly entitled, “Merge IPv4 ISP and End-User Requirements”. SL stated that the text was sent to Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) today. He stated that he would present this DP in Atlanta at the ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC) in February.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8: Subsequent Allocations for New Multiple Discrete Networks

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8: Subsequent Allocations for New Multiple Discrete Networks’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. CA stated it was ready to move forward, and that it was definitely needed. She noted that staff comments had been integrated, and that comments have been received from the PPML and the Advisory Council (AC) members.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call.

HS returned to the meeting at this time (1:57 p.m. EST).

6. ARIN-Prop-192: Out of Region Use

It was moved by MM, and seconded by SH, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-192: Out of Region Use’ as a Draft Policy.”
The Chair called for comments. There were none.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

7. ARIN-Prop-193: Alignment of 8.3 Needs Requirements to Reality of Business

KB stated that the AC shepherds of the proposal were working with author on the originally submitted text.

8. ARIN-Prop-194: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip Language

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-194: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip Language’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for comments. BD read the text: “Source entities within the ARIN region must not have received a transfer, allocation, or assignment of IPv4 number resources from ARIN for the 12 months prior to the approval of a transfer request. This restriction does not include M&A transfers. Restrictions related to recent receipt of blocks shall not apply to inter-RIR transfers within the same organization and its subsidiaries.”

BD stated that the author is in agreement with the language, and that it would be posted as a DP. KB stated he believed that it sounded like the same issue: a shell company, with a subsidiary in a foreign country, could transfer resources to a subsidiary, thus disposing of the transferred resources within the 12-month request limit and then make a request to obtain more resources.

BD stated that that matter was considered and that is the question: Is that a large risk in the timeframe given?

OD believed that the problem statement was clear, that the language addressed it as written, and that the community can decide the matter. SL agreed with OD, but believed the question to ponder was that if an organization took a block and transferred it to a subsidiary, could the organization obtain another block for the same need, or do the other restrictions for more space apply?

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

9. ARIN-Prop-195: Remove 8.2 and 8.3 and 8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size Requirements

OD stated that he did not support the proposal, but that a motion should be made to look into the topic more thoroughly.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-195: Remove 8.2 and 8.3 and 8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size Requirements’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD believed it needed the test of going through the process. DF cautioned the need to apply discretion at the ‘recommended draft policy’ stage.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

10. ARIN-Prop-196: Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy

JSp noted that the proposal had a clear statement and was in scope.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-196: Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. JSp stated it was ‘short and sweet’, and was a clear proposal.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

11. ARIN-Prop-197: Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations

It was moved by SH, and seconded by BD, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-197: Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

12. ARIN-Prop-198: Remove 7.1

RS believed that the problem statement was straightforward.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-198: Remove 7.1’, as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. RS added that it did not cover IPv6 anyway, and that it removed what need to be removed.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

13. ARIN-Prop-199: Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements

HS stated that she was awaiting the author’s feedback.

14. ARIN-Prop-200: Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation Conservation Update

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-200: Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation Conservation Update’, as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. AD stated that text included language that would change the fee category for existing organizations under this policy, and queried whether or not this should be considered within, or out of, scope.

AD further stated there were two aspects to the DP: First, it changed the exchange requirement from two to three users for a /24 exchange point; and, secondly, it changed the language about who is an end-user versus who is an ISP or an exchange point – to be a non-profit would be an ’end-user’ and all others would be ISPs. Currently, the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) states that organizations that are ISPs are charged as ISPs, and all others are charged as end-users.

The proposal text was read for clarification. DF believed the proposal text was out of scope. He did believe, however, that it responded to text in the NRPM that would be out of scope, and that has been in the NRPM for a very long time. He noted that the NRPM text predated the current processes.

DF believed the AC should accept the proposal with the text as written, and consult with the ARIN Finance Committee on which portion of the language belongs in NRPM. He believed that since the proposal was dealing with text that is currently in the NRPM, there were grounds to accept it.

JSp believed the author was attempting to reallocate where organizations fall in the fee structure and found the proposal out of scope. He believed it to be an ’end-run’ around the AC making policy on fees, and did not believe it legitimate, as it was out of scope.

KB pointed out that the NRPM had specifications regarding end-users and ISPs; and, that they had different allocation policies. Micro-allocation falls in the middle. If one is new, ARIN determines allocation based on one’s business model. He noted that the text was not well written, but did not believe it to be out of scope. He noted that defining a type of sector as ’non profit’ may put it out of scope. He pointed out that the impetus behind the proposal was to make the space available.

The Chair called for an Executive Session on conflict of interest disclosures at 2:41 p.m. EST. The Chair resumed the meeting at 2:57 p.m. EST and called for further discussion.

SL believed that the policy text could be changed after it was accepted, and that the problem statement did not mention fees. It mentioned changing exchange requirements from two to three users, which was in scope. He supported the motion.

HS agreed with JSp on his point of it being an end-run around fees. She believed that it might adversely affect other organizations that receive micro-allocations. She suggested that if it is about two versus three users, then that text can be retained, strike the last sentence, and leave the fee portion as it is.

KB believed the text was pushing for open not-for-profit member driven IX’s all over North America. He believed the proposal work was poor and suggested going back to author to work on the language for the industry. He did not support motion.

MM asked if AD spoke with the author on the scope? AD stated he did raise it with the author and his response was posted to PPML. MM stated that he agreed with DF that the end-user category is not out of scope. With regard to the proposed new category, the text needed to be elaborated for DP status. He noted it could be improved and made less troublesome with another round through the process.

AD read the note to the author and the author’s response. MM suggested that the AC could respond that the new category is not well defined. AD believed moving the policy forward would be acceptable to the author, with the text being edited out if appropriate.

DF stated that the original language led the author to write this proposal. He supported the motion.

JSp noted that the wording about users and ISPs had been removed. The new language stated IX users and ISPs, and that was out of scope. The author was creating a new category. He stated he would support the text without that wording.

The Chair stated that basically the author is changing two to three users. If the AC made it a DP, they would have the authority to change two to three in the text. KB noted the author was trying to achieve a proposal that was in scope, but the text is poorly written so as not to be in scope.

HS disagreed that the fee change was a no op. She stated that several types of organizations are affected by the micro-allocation policy, and the author’s removal of statements would impact those organizations. The TLDs, and other organizations, would become ISPs, if they were not before, because of that sentence. How many are ISPs versus end user, etc? KB agreed with HS.

HS further stated that either you: a) let ARIN staff figure out the fee issue or, b) let micro-allocations be assigned to either/or, and let staff decide which is which. It was not appropriate to call them out in the NRPM.

The Chair stated that if the proposal did not move it forward, the proposals shepherds could work with the author to bring the text to good form. The Chair believed that the main point of the proposal was changing two to three users. He noted the options: the proposal did not move forward and AD would work with the author; or, the proposal moved forward and the AC would remove the text.

AD supported moving the proposal to DP status, and then deal with the scope issues. The Chair noted that the problem statement said nothing about fees. HS noted that the AC had 60 days and that would be enough time.

The motion carried with 10 in favor and 5 against (CA, KB, HS, RS, JSp) via roll call.

15. Suspension of Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) Sections 4.6 and 4.7

DA stated that he had sent the AC the text for recommendations to the Board. The AC reviewed the text.

The Chair called for recess at 3:15 p.m. EST. The Chair resumed the meeting at 3:30 p.m. EST.

It was moved by DA, and seconded by BD, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council sends the ARIN Board of Trustees the recommendation as follows:

“The Advisory Council supports the action of the Board to suspend sections 4.6 and 4.7 of the NRPM. The AC recommends the suspension remain in place while we work with the community on an appropriate policy response. To initiate community discussion, the AC submitted a proposal to remove Sections 4.6 and 4.7. The AC encourages input from the community on this matter. If anyone believes that aspects of the amnesty or aggregation policy should be retained, they are encouraged to post their comments and recommendations to the PPML.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

16. Improve Communications Group (ICG)

The Chair noted the members were: Bill Darte, Group Chair, John Springer, and Cathy Aronson, with Chris Grundemann as an interested Community Member.

17. Any Other Business

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

18. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 3:40 p.m. EST. RS moved to adjourn, seconded by JSp. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.