Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 20 February 2014 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair (JSw)
• Dan Alexander, Vice Chair (DA)
• Kevin Blumberg (KB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• 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

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

Regrets

• Cathy Aronson, Nate Davis, Owen DeLong, Steve Ryan

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

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

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 24 January 2014, 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

SL stated that based on the results of the recent Public Policy Consultation (PPC), the text will be ready to become a Recommended Draft Policy (DP) at a later date. EB reminded the AC that requests for staff and legal review needed to be requested by 03 March. SL stated he would request this shortly.

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

SL stated this DP was well-supported at the PPC, but there was concern that the text needed revision with regard to having connectivity in place before one receives the allocation. The author sent updated text resolving this issue. The text will be re-posted to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). AD stated he would post the text to the AC shepherds of this DP.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use

MM stated that, based on his review of comments received on the PPML, there was some support, but also some strong opposition from a couple of the members of the community. SL stated that during the PPC, there was quite a bit of support for the ‘general idea’. DF agreed that there was general support for the concept, but that it was not ready to become a recommended DP. He noted that eliminating the customer address was an issue, and he believed that it should be removed. He noted Geoff Huston had interesting comments that he would be discussing with him.

MM asked DF if there were any implications of removing customer addresses. DF replied that the customer billing address would be removed, but the customer service location would be retained in the DP. He explained that the technical folks may not know where the billing address was, and believed that given privacy issues, it was a legitimate consideration.

SL stated that Geoff Huston had noted specific reference to ARIN-issued resources. SL believed it would be important to evaluate the use of all resources; and, to ensure no one is getting around the policy by looking at only ARIN-issued resources. He noted that a community member had suggested reviewing the policy and noting the effects on transfers.

DF reiterated that he did not see enough support for this text to become a recommended DP, stating that it needed to be done correctly, not quickly. MM asked if DF believed it was not ready not due to lack of support, but possibly due to implementation details. DF replied that he believed the community did not have sufficient understanding of what it meant yet; and, that the details needed to be fleshed out. MM noted the detailed description of what is not counted as ‘out of region use’ and asked why that was necessary. DF explained that part of the intent is to have influence on the fee schedule. There were a number of places where that line was skirted, but not crossed. DF stated that he was flexible with regard to removing this text. SL also stated that people were unclear on the likelihood of a separate fee schedule, if the DP were to move forward.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip Language

BD stated that he had recently sent the latest draft to the AC’s list for review. He stated there was no subsequent discussion on the PPML. He noted that one member was concerned about the addition that the AC had suggested with regard to restrictions of blocks not applying to RIR transfers within an organization and its subsidiaries; and, wondered ‘Does this open up the door for abuse?’ BD read the original language:

“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 noted the one suggested change to limit the potential for abuse in the last sentence. That change would add to the following sentence as follows:

“…Restrictions related to recent receipt of blocks shall not apply to inter-RIR transfers within the same organization and its subsidiaries providing network services.”

BD stated that if the AC agreed, then he would add those words to the sentence. He believed it needed to be presented at ARIN 33 as a Draft Policy.

SL stated that he supported the addition. A number of people at the PPC had asked, “Why can’t we say we can’t flip the same block?” SL continued to add “If we relax what we have, would it be better to have it in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) to be specific to netblocks, instead of to the organization?” SL believed this would be easier on staff.

BD stated he was willing to go back to the author and state that there was consensus (if there was) within the AC on the matter. He asked if the AC agreed. AD believed more discussion was needed on the list. BD stated he would take it to the PPML for feedback.

The President noted that objections were with respect to the words ‘organizations and its subsidiaries’ and the fact that if the abuse ends up due to the words ‘and its subsidiaries’, it would not be desirable. He noted another option: to rely on staff. He explained that staff could bring up circumstances of anyone bypassing the policy. He suggested, for thought, omitting ‘and its subsidiaries’, and relying on staff to raise the matter if it becomes a pattern.

BD stated that ‘and its subsidiaries’ was added due to community member David Huberman’s experience in that he could not make it happen. The President believed that David was saying it should have been possible, but that it was not allowed. There is concern about abuse happening before there has been any evidence of it happening. Staff’s oversight is a third approach.

BD stated he could certainly add the approach to the text. He stated he would raise all of these discussion points on the PPML, and appreciated the comments.

KB stated that there was a long discussion on shell core, wholly owned, subsidiaries being funneled into an easy company to create, and then sold with only the IP numbers. He believed it was a known ‘hole’ that could be used, and that waiting for this to happen was not prudent.

RS agreed with KB. He acknowledged what the President was conveying, and trusted staff to get it right. However, he believed that waiting for an experience report to show it, with then a whole policy cycle having to happen to get it resolved, the abuse would be exploited to the point of emptying the pool. He believed it best to err on side of caution. BD reiterated that he would post all of these points to the PPML.

8. ARIN- Draft Policy ARIN-2014-3: Remove 8.2 and 8.3 and 8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size Requirements

BD stated that currently the DP statement is as originally written. He explained that it was OD and David Huberman’s (author) intention to leave it as a DP, and to present it at the next Public Policy Meeting (PPM). HS stated that the feedback at the PPC was that it was a bad idea and not to do it – that it should not be allowed. BD asked if she believed they wanted to abandon it. HS stated that the folks who spoke to it were against it. SL stated that, based on the PPC only, it should be abandoned. KB did not support it. He stated that it was not technically sound, and that he believed it needed to be abandoned.

BD noted that OD was the primary shepherd and was not on the call, and asked if there was enough time to abandon this at the next meeting to let OD learn of this discussion. It was confirmed that could be done. BD encouraged the AC to send comments to him and OD, and stated that action could be taken at the next meeting.

SL suggested sending a note to PPML for feedback. BD agreed to do so.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy

JSp stated that this DP was a duplicate of 2013-7. SL stated that he would request a staff and legal review for 2013-7, and would request the same for this DP. He then asked if it should be abandoned. He noted that at the last PPM, no one would discuss it. He asked, “Based on that, should we abandon it, and leave the other DP in place?”

DF believed it should move forward in case something in the other DP was a problem. That way, the AC could move one or the other forward, as appropriate. The Chair agreed. SL stated he would rather remove the DP to avoid having a duplicate DP at ARIN 33. JSp stated that it was premature to think that 2013-7 would definitely move forward. He was in favor of retaining both DPs in parallel.

SL asked if removing 4.2.5 from the cleanup policy was satisfactory. All agreed. SL stated that he would remove the language before the staff and legal review. SH stated that she agreed with SL.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-5: Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations

SH noted that many members do not care about cleanup policies, even if they are important. She did not see a reason not to move this DP to Recommended DP. The Chair requested that SH send him a request for staff and legal review. SH agreed to do so.

KB suggested that if this was used in the past, the AC should to explain to the community why it’s there, or else get rid of it.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove 7.1

RS stated that, in entirety, he could repeat what SH had said about 2014-5. He was supportive of moving to this DP also to Recommended DP status; and, he would request a staff and legal review. SL stated that it was noted at the PPM that there was nothing about IPv6, however it is in 6.5.6. Removing 7.1 leaves a hole in IPv4, where there is no hole in IPv6. He believed it should be abandoned. RS asked if it should be modified to be like 6.5.6. SL stated that he would like to move to abandon this DP, and asked the for AC comments.

AD noted that reverse delegations are a fundamental registry service that is provided to resource holders and some reference should be included in the NRPM.

KB stated that it did not have IPv6 in it, and it should be added. He pointed out that the AC did not have the staff and legal review to make an informed decision; and they needed that to make the decision. He believed the review should be requested, and then decide if it should be moved forward or abandoned. RS stated that KB made a good point, and agreed.

12. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation Conservation Update

AD stated that discussions at the PPC were mixed, but it was clear that the language on fees was distracting to the issue of changing 2 to 3 in the micro-allocation policy. He stated that he sent changes to the AC’s list, and updated the statement for clarity. He stated that he would request staff and legal review; and, that he would have staff post the updated policy to list for discussion.

KB asked if anyone was in favor of increasing from 2 to 3. AD noted that during remote participation at the PPC, a few believed it was useful, while it did not matter to others. He believed it made sense to get the review before abandoning it. SL stated that there was support for changing from 2 to 3, and that there did not seem to be objections.

KB pondered that this was possibly a business practice issue and not a policy issue. He pointed out that staff has to verify many requirements, and wondered if 2 to 3 wasn’t a business practice versus a policy practice. The President pointed out that ultimately it was up to the community to define an inter-exchange point.

JSp noted that a community member from the Caribbean had stated that going to 3 would cause hardship in that part of the region. That needed to be taken into consideration. BD agreed.

KB pointed out that if only one of two parties provided a /30, he considered 2 parties a non-issue – if that was all it would ever be. Three parties meant that one party would not want to use the IP space. In the two party scenario, if one person pulls IPs it’s only between the two people; but with three people, it can affect other parties. He stated that if the concern is abuse, a better problem statement was needed.

AD stated that if KB had ideas on the text, to please send them to him. He noted that, in terms of allocation size, the text could be reflected to lower it to micro-allocations for IXPs, as they would not be routed; and that maybe that should be explored. Doing so would change the /24 issue; and he noted that folks have gotten excited over that. He stated that he would post the updated text to the PPML for discussion, and request a staff and legal review.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘Alignment of 8.3 Needs Requirements to Reality of Business’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. KB stated that the problem statement was in scope, and believed it to be understood by the members. He stated that two issues were brought up related to the free pool with regard to getting space: run out and slow start. He believed the statement was well articulated. He stated that there was a conference call with the author, and they revised the policy text. There was still work to be done, and there was a difference of opinion between staff and the author on policy text interpretation. He believed it needed to be put forth to community. The AC agreed.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call

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

HS stated that she had sent text to AC’s list and to staff. There was one sentence added that covered two terms in the proposal for aggregation - justification covers aggregation, and transfer and return. She believed the text to be stronger and ready to become a DP.

It was moved by HS, and seconded by SL, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that he believed that this was not the right way, but that it needed be on the AC’s docket. HS stated that the author was not interested in modifying the text. SL stated it should be presented to community, and that the text could be modified once it was a DP.

The President left the call at this time (5:16 p.m. EST).

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call.

15. ARIN-Prop-201: Remove Sections 4.6 and 4.7

HS and MM left the call at this time (5:18 p.m. EST).

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘Remove Sections 4.6 and 4.7’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. TM stated that there was not much feedback. SH reiterated that cleanup policies are not lauded by community; however, it did not mean that they should not be done. She supported the motion.

RS countered SH’s comment, stating that it was important to get it right, and people are on board with it. He believed there was not much to discuss not because it’s cleanup, but because once people have had the issue explained, it became obvious what the problem was, and the participation had occurred. SL agreed.

DF suggested a request for staff and legal be sent to that it can be promoted to recommended DP status at next AC meeting. The Chair asked the DP shepherds to request a staff and legal review if they felt it appropriate. They agreed.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call.

16. ARIN-Prop-202: Anti-Hijack Policy

DF stated that this was received this week, and that he would be reviewing it for further discussion at the next AC meeting.

17. ARIN-Prop-203: Improved Registry Accuracy

KB stated that a new proposal text had been submitted to the PPML today, and cleanup was required. The author had provided a clear understanding of what they were looking for in this proposal. KB believed it had merit, and should be moved to DP.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘Improved Registry Accuracy’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion and asked KB if he believed that this proposal was time sensitive. KB stated that he believed that it was, as IPv4 was nearing run out. The author conveyed a disconnection between legacy holders and community. We would run into a problem, nearing run out, where legacy holders will do things with their resources. We need a policy with regard to what the ‘give’ to legacy holders would be, so that they could work more within the community and less outside of it. Due to rate of run out, if we do not present this at the next PPM, it would be a problem.

AD stated that given the new text was posted so recently as today to the PPML, he could not support moving the text to DP until he had time to review it. DF agreed, stating that he wanted to vote on it at the next AC meeting. JSp stated that he too would like more time to review the new text, and to compare it to the old proposal text.

KB stated that the problem statement was within scope to work on it as a DP. The Chair reviewed the problem statement with the AC.

BD agreed with KB, in the sense that the problem statement was an encapsulation of the ideas in the earlier draft of the proposal, noting it was not that different. He believed if the AC moved it to DP, they could get it in the queue for further work.

DF stated he believed the problem statement was acceptable, and changed his mind to support the motion.

The motion carried with 10 in favor, and one against (AD).

18. Improve Communications Group (ICG)

In the interest of time, the Chair asked the BD (Group Chair) to defer discussion to the next AC teleconference. BD agreed.

19. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. There was no other business.

20. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:45 p.m. EST. RS moved to adjourn, seconded by SH. The motion carried with no objections.