Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 May 2014 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

• John Sweeting, Chair (JSw)
• Dan Alexander, Vice Chair (DA)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Kevin Blumberg (KB)
• Bill Darte (BD)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Tina Morris (TM)
• John Springer (JSp)

Minute Taker:

• Thérèse Colosi

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.

Regrets

• Andrew Dul, Stacy Hughes, Milton Mueller, Heather Schiller, Rob Seastrom

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:10 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda and noted that items on the agenda would not be discussed in order, due to some AC members having tenuous connectivity. Action items requiring full AC majority on votes would be discussed first. Other items would be discussed in an order that took into consideration the assigned shepherds, and their required actions. It was noted that there was a need to finalize preparations for the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC) at NANOG 61 during this call.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 16 April 2014, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

SL added the following sentence from 4.2.4.3 back into the replacement text: “Determination of the appropriate allocation to be issued is based on efficient utilization of space within this time frame, consistent with the principals in 4.2.1.” SL stated that he had received positive feedback.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-7: NRPM 4 (IPv4) Policy Cleanup’ as revised to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that he had not received any comments to the contrary.

The motion carried with all in favor (DA, CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, SL, TM, JSp, JSw) via roll call.

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

CA stated that this Draft Policy (DP) would be presented at the PPC in Bellevue, WA, during the NANOG 61 Meeting.

It was moved by OD and seconded by BD that:

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

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated that he believed that the text had community support, with minor changes to address some issues raised at ARIN 33; and, that he did not see the need to delay it. BD agreed.

The motion carried with 9 in favor (CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, SL, TM, JSp, JSw), and 1 against (DA) via roll call.

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

BD stated that he did not believe MM had any intent to move this DP to recommended DP status at this point in time. He did not have any further information, but noted that no motion needed to be made.

SL asked what was being presenting at the PPC? BD believed it would again be discussed, at as it was at the ARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting (PPM).

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

BD stated that he had posted rationale suggesting a motion to abandon to the AC’s list.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2014-2: Improving 8.4 Anti-Flip Language’.”

The Chair called for discussion and asked for any objections. BD stated that the author wanted to withdraw the proposal, but BD had explained that he could not do so, since it was now in the AC’s hands. SL asked if the author stated why he wanted to withdraw the DP. BD explained that the author believed it to be a ‘corner case’ and no one else has come forward with similar problems; it could be addressed in the future when the free pool and anti-flip are over. SL thanked him.

BD noted support during ARIN 33, but that nothing was progressing. SL suggested an ‘after exhaustion’ proposal for the future, as that might better address the larger issues the community has asked the AC to keep working on.

The motion carried with all in favor (DA, CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, SL, TM, JSp, JSw) via roll call.

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

OD stated this DP would be presented at the ARIN PPC for community feedback. KB stated that at the ARIN PPM there was quite a bit of discussion with regard to phasing-in, over time. KB asked, would that be addressed at the ARIN PPC or was the text being presented as-is? OD stated it was planned to be presented as-is, but if similar feedback is received, the AC could work on it. BD suggested, for the community’s benefit,, an indication during the (PPC) presentation that there was such discussion at the ARIN PPM. The Chair agreed.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, supports ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy’ and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with all in favor (DA, CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, SL, TM, JSp, JSw) via roll call.

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

The Chair stated this would be presented at the PPC.

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

The Chair stated that the shepherd is working on this DP, and planned on presenting it at the ARIN PPC as a DP, with revised text.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, supports ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation’ and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

It was moved to table this motion as 10 votes were needed to pass it, and BD had dropped from the call at this time (4:16 pm) leaving 9 members on the teleconference.

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

KB indicated that he was working on a revised draft, as he did not support the concept of removing all related 8.3 ARIN policy and adding in ‘up to 24 months’. He noted that the policy statement was more than what had been asked for; and, that he was adding a section to Section 8.3 for more lenient allocation through transfer market.

BD returned to the call at this time (4:18 pm).

Item 12. The Chair called for any discussion on the motion for Item 12, to recommend the ARIN Board adopt ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro Allocation Conservation’. There were no comments.

The motion carried with all in favor (DA, CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, SL, TM, JSp, JSw) via roll call.

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

SL stated that this DP would be presented at that ARIN PPC.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, supports ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-10: Remove Sections 4.6 and 4.7’ and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”
The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with all in favor (DA, CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, SL, TM, JSp, JSw) via roll call.

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

KB worked on a ‘bottom up’ rewrite of this DP and cleaned up the text radically, as well as specified what legacy resources and un-contracted legacy resources were. He stated there would be a new draft shortly. OD stated that he would like a more descriptive title. KB agreed to change the title.

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

DF stated this DP was ready to be moved to Recommended DP status. He stated it was supported, and few revisions were made as a result of feedback from the ARIN 33 meeting.

DF moved to recommended DF. CA seconded.

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘ARIN-2014-12: Anti-Hijack Policy’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with all in favor (DA, CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, SL, JSw) via roll call.

(Note: at the time this item was discussed during the teleconference, Tina Morris and John Springer had left the call and did not vote on this item.)

18. ARIN-Prop-204: Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts “Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers” as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. JSp stated this proposal was clear, in scope, and supported on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML).

The motion carried all in favor (DA, CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, SL, TM, JSp, JSw) via roll call.

19. ARIN-Prop-205: Allow Inter-RIR ASN Transfers

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘Allow Inter-RIR ASN Transfers’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that this proposal was simple, and that it was exactly the same policy text as the earlier Draft Policy ARIN-2012-3 that was considered prior to APNIC adopting their ASN transfer policy.

The motion carried with all in favor (DA, CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, SL, JSw) via roll call.

(Note: at the time this item was discussed during the teleconference, Tina Morris and John Springer had left the call and did not vote on this item.)

20. ARIN-Prop-206: Implement IPv6 from IPv4 Without an Outage

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council remands ‘Implement IPv6 from IPv6 Without an Outage’ to the originator.”

The Chair called for discussion. The President asked if this proposal was remanded for lack of clarity, or was the proposal being abandoned. The Chair explained that the author stated he would probably drop further pursuit of this proposal, but clarification from the author is needed so it was being remanded for lack of clarity.

The motion carried all in favor (DA, CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, SL, TM, JSp, JSw) via roll call.

21. ARIN-Prop-207: Section 4.10 Austerity Policy Update

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘Section 4.10 Austerity Policy Update’ as a Draft Policy.

The Chair called for discussion. CA stated clearly written and in scope.

The motion carried with all in favor (DA, CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, SL, JSw) via roll call.

(Note: at the time this item was discussed during the teleconference, Tina Morris and John Springer had left the call and did not vote on this item.)

22. ARIN-Prop-208: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24

A) It was moved by KB, and seconded by CA that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignmen Units to /24’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. KB stated that policy text was clear, concise and spelled out exactly the community’s needs. He noted it had received overwhelming support. OD asked LN if she read KB’s recent modifications. LN stated she had not had a chance but would be reviewing them shortly.

The motion carried with all in favor (DA, CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, SL, TM, JSp, JSw) via roll call.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘ARIN Draft Policy 2014-13: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. KB stated that there had been significant cleanup of the text, it was re-submitted to the community, and that it had received sufficient support. He noted that some viewpoints wanted the original version, not the cleaned up version. Cleanup removed text no longer in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), but the community did not explain why the original text was beneficial. Furthermore, there was no reason given as to why the folks did not like the new text. Otherwise, the text had very good support. He noted that the legal aspects from the staff and legal review were clean.

KB explained that there were some staff concerns with how they handle maximum allocations. He believed it is one of the things the community had asked for in the transfer market – no limit, not hard coded to a /20. He believed it should be based on real needs - you get whatever size you need as an initial allocation. He did not want to rule people out in an artificial way. He did not believe the metrics would change, and if they did, he wanted to work it out from staff’s point of view.

LN stated that if there are transfers in an 8.3 market, staff would be much more liberal, as they are looking at 24 months versus a 3 month need. The staff comments reflect that it would be difficult to tell people they can have a /20 without parameters.

KB stated to LN for clarity that if a new entrant has a /19 they are utilizing, they need to show utilization, and the allocation would not automatically be a maximum /20, it would be ‘what they need’ plus 3 months. LN replied that ARIN does not normally allocate more than a /20 on initial allocations.

OD was concerned that there was more rigorous review to free pool than transfer requests and that he had thought it would be the same analysis. LN explained that the 24-month window changes everything; staff has to apply very different parameters and that it does not work the same way.

The motion carried with 9 in favor (DA, CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, SL, JSp, JSw), and 1 against (TM) via roll call.

23. ARIN-Prop-209: Change Utilization Requirements from Last-Allocation to Total-Aggregate

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘Change Utilization Requirements from Last-Allocation to Total-Aggregate’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with all in favor (DA, CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, SL, JSw) via roll call.

(Note: at the time this item was discussed during the teleconference, Tina Morris and John Springer had left the call and did not vote on this item.)

24. Improve Communications Group (ICG)

ICG members: BD (Chair), JSp, CA, and C. Grundemann (Community member). BD stated that there was a call with Richard Jimmerson, and number of AC members to review what could be done response to ARIN’s recent survey. Work is proceeding.

25. Any Other Business

• The Chair stated that a number of AC members would be at the NANOG and PPC along with ARIN staff support.

• SL stated that he was revising Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9 to remove the words ‘aggregate’ and ‘reclaim’, and that the revised text would be ready by the deadline for presenting at the ARIN PCC.

• President stated that MM sent regrets, as he was traveling.

26. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:29 p.m. EDT. CA moved to adjourn, seconded by BD. The motion carried with no objections.