Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 16 April 2014 [Archived]

Chicago, IL

Advisory Council Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair (JSw)
• Dan Alexander, Vice Chair (DA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Kevin Blumberg (KB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• 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:

• Einar Bohlin

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel

• John Curran, President & CEO

• Nate Davis, COO

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

General Counsel

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:42 p.m. CDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the AC and called for any comments. The Chair stated that item 16, “Draft Policy ARIN-2014-11: Improved Registry Accuracy” would be discussed after item 3. All agreed.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 20 March 2014, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

16. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-11: Improved Registry Accuracy

KB stated that he had heard that community members were interested in additional definitions and WHOIS accuracy. He wondered if this Draft Policy (DP) should be abandoned or should the AC radically change the text? He believed that the original intent of the problem statement could be met, but it would be a stretch - proper legal definition of ’legacy resource’ was needed.

The President noted that he had provided the AC with a definition of ’legacy resource’ as currently stated in the Legacy Resource Services Agreement (LRSA). He noted that policies in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) apply to all resources, and suggested adding the legacy resource definition only if they knew for what purpose it would be used. KB agreed that the definition would only be used if there were a purpose.

Counsel pointed out that the definition in the LRSA went through community, legal, and ARIN Board review. The President read the definition to the effect that legacy resources were those issued prior to ARIN’s inception, before 22 December 1997. BD noted that there was a discussion of the scope when the AC began working on this DP. He was in favor of abandoning this DP, and starting with a proposal with a problem statement and a matching title.

JSp noted that there was a responsibility to advance this as far as possible through the Policy Development Process (PDP), salvaging what could be salvaged. He pointed out that there were parts of this DP that the community has supported. He suggested removing what needed to be removed and then proceed.

DF believed that starting over did not always lead to something better. SL noted that abandonment might be perceived as ARIN not caring about accuracy. He suggested keeping the good parts of the DP and continuing to work on the text.

The President reviewed the Clarity and Understanding report that had been provided, noting that that early on there had been no clear problem statement and significant text regarding registry services, which is a topic beyond number resource policy. SH stated that she was in favor of a fresh start. OD suggested talking about legacy registrations, since the resource stops being legacy when it was transferred. He too was in favor of starting over and addressing the problem of registry accuracy.

  MM joined meeting at this time (1:58 p.m. CDT).

JSp stated that he was in favor of working on the problem statement. KB noted that when the AC crafted the problem statement, they did not have input from staff. He stated that he would like to work on this DP until the AC’s next regularly scheduled meeting. DF stated that many legacy holders were very interested in this DP. KB suggested a new problem statement could be something to the effect that legacy holders need help updating the org field.

The Chair resumed the Agenda in order.

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

SL suggested leaving this as draft, and that he would make minor text changes and the AC could then consider it for Last Call.

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

CA stated that she would add text regarding deployment, along with examples of evidence of deployment, and post it to the list.

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

MM noted the mandate to continue working on this DP. He stated it was an important proposal for IPv6, not for IPv4, noting that he had changes to make to the text.

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

BD noted that the community wanted the AC to continue to work on this DP. He stated he would work on the matter of organizations and their subsidiaries. SL noted that this might be overtaken by events.

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

OD stated that the community did not support removing minimum IPv4 block size requirements completely. He suggested the AC consider reducing the minimum to a /26 and posting that for discussion. CA stated that if this topic was presented at the next Public Policy Consultation (PPC) it needed to go before the NANOG plenary. SL volunteered to present it at NANOG. KB asked what the other RIRs were considering, and that that information should be included. He suggested it could be a ‘Lightning Talk’; and, noted that /32s were discussed as a problem, but something larger might be acceptable.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2014-5: Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

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

RS stated that he intended to modify the DP to state that Section 6.5.6 would also be removed, and that he would post it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) for discussion. He also stated that the DP would be presented at the PPC during NANOG. DF noted there was discussion about a need for a place for this text when it is removed from the NRPM.

OD noted that the text in Section 7 was about reassignment information versus the text in Section 6.5.6.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove 7.1’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. RS and SL did not support the motion. SL agreed with taking the operational text regarding performing reverse DNS out of the NRPM. He stated that there was an incorrect assertion in the current text that there was no IPv6 reverse policy, which was not true. He asked where the operational practices text would reside.

AD stated that reverse DNS was an operational practice. The President pointed out that ARIN provides reverse DNS to everyone. The practice was not in the LRSA or the RSA (Registration Services Agreement). He asked the AC if they believed ARIN needed some form of a ‘services document’. He noted that ARIN had some staff-written material online regarding services, but that was not same as a Services Working Group (WG).

KB, DF, AD were not in support of motion. OD stated that Section 7.1 did not describe how things were done, and believed that removing it would do no harm. JSp believed the draft to be fair, that it was supported and that it was sound. He supported the motion. SL pointed out that the community stated that the AC should work on this DP; and, he preferred RS’s plan to revise it and present it at the next PPC. He believed it premature to advance the DP at this time.

The motion to recommend for adoption failed with 3 in favor (OD, MM, JSp) and 12 against via roll call.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation Update’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. AD stated that the community supported this DP and that it also wanted the AC to consider smaller prefixes for IXPs. He stated he would work on that issue.

The motion carried with 13 in favor, and 2 against (BD, OD) via roll call.

13. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-8: Alignment of 8.3 Needs Requirements to Reality of Business

KB noted that the community wanted the AC to continue to work on this DP, especially on the issue of ‘slow start’.

14. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements

HS stated that she planned on revising the text, and presenting it at the upcoming PPC.

Counsel left the meeting at this time (2:37 p.m. CDT).

15. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-10: Remove Sections 4.6 and 4.7

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-10: Remove Sections 4.6 and 4.7’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. TM noted that the community supported this DP, and that the policies have not been used for a long time.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

16. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-11: Improved Registry Accuracy

Discussed previously after item 3.

17. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-Hijack Policy

DF stated that he intended to update the text and consider promoting it to Recommended Draft Policy for ARIN 34 in the fall. He noted that the DP was new, and still needed a staff and legal assessment performed.

18. Improve Communications Group (ICG)

ICG members: BD (Chair), JSp, CA, and C. Grundemann (Community member).

BD provided an update, stating that the Committee had several documents ready for the AC to review. He requested they review the document regarding Shepherd’s roles first. The recent Customer Survey results, performed by ARIN, showed some obvious overlap between that output and the Committee’s tasks. JSp asked the COO what was expected from the AC with regard to the scope, etc. The COO replied that the results would be published, with highlights of some areas for the Committee. He suggested scheduling a teleconference to discuss it further. BD stated that the Committee would share that feedback with the AC and invited any other interested AC members to join the discussion. KB expressed the need to stay focused in order to have a product to present at ARIN 34.

19. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items. OD expressed concern about the general question within the AC regarding DPs: “Should the AC continue to work on this?” JSw said the entire question was, “Should the AC be concerned enough to work on this, or abandon it?” JSp suggested that continuing to work on a DP meant eventually advancing it. The Chair and MM disagreed. They believed it meant continuing to work on it.

The President found no issue with the question. He explained that if someone at the microphone did not support the draft policy, they should be asked what changes, if any, could be made so that they could support it. It was asked who would lead the discussion after the AC presented a DP – the AC or the Board? BD stated he did ask who controls the discussion, the AC or the Board, and he was told that it was the Board. KB noted it was a moot discussion without other Board members who would lead that follow-up discussion.

CA stated that there were some folks working on the slow-start problem after run-out. AD stated that he was also working on this issue with some folks. KB noted that slow start was part of his draft policy.

SH commented about how great an experience it was to be a mentor at this meeting.

KB noted that there were quite a number of proposals discussed at this meeting, but that there was not an overall picture of what might be changed. DF stated that the AC could handle the queue, but believed there was too much for the community to discuss. KB suggested when there were more than 10 proposals on the docket, they need to be prioritized to decide to which proposals to allocate time.

CA expressed concern about the joint ARIN/NANOG meeting, which has a shorter ARIN meeting portion. The President stated that the AC could decide which proposals would be discussed. JSw pointed out loss of time due to elections. The President suggested to use the mailing list to get the proposals in good shape.

20. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 3:09 p.m. CDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by SH. The motion carried with no objections.