Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 July 2014 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

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

Scribe:

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
• Einar Bohlin (EB), Sr. Policy Analyst
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis, COO
• Leslie Nobile, (LN) Dir., Registration Services

General Counsel

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Absent

• Bill Darte

Regrets

• John Springer

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted, with the Chair acknowledging regrets from John Springer.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda and called for comments. The item ‘ARIN AC Expense Report Submissions’ was added to Any Other Business, per the President’s request.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 19 June 2014, as written.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections, and one abstention (MM).

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

Informational item: The ARIN Board of Trustees will review this policy for adoption at their meeting on 18 July 2014.

5. Recommended 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, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at an ARIN Public Policy Consultation 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-2013-8: Subsequent Allocations for New Multiple Discrete Networks’ and recommends it for adoption by the ARIN Board of Trustees.”

The Chair called for discussion. CA stated that there was positive feedback during the ’last call’ period. She stated that she had sought clarity from one person who had a concern, but did not succeed in receiving additional feedback. She believed that the text had received sufficient support and was ready to move forward to the Board for adoption.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call.

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

MM stated he had recently sent revised text to the AC’s list, as it was believed the text had too much wording. He believed the substance of the policy had now been achieved. He asked if DF had been able to review the revisions. DF stated he had not had a chance to respond.

The Chair reminded MM to request a staff and legal review if he believed this draft policy should be discussed at ARIN 34 in October. MM stated that there was ambiguity in policy and asked if DF could discuss it for clarity. The Chair clarified that the request for staff and legal review would need to be submitted no later than early August, and agreed it would be best to discuss it offline and decide. The AC could then review the document sent.

MM stated it would not take long to go over the ambiguity. DF reviewed the document and stated the ambiguity was whether the history of allocations in other RIRs can be used to justify larger allocations than the initial allocation – like can be done in ARIN region. DF believed it could be removed if needed.

In the interest of time, the Chair asked EB to set a Doodle poll for a teleconference sometime next week to discuss the matter further. DF and MM stated they could be available on Monday, July 21. The Chair stated that any AC member who wanted to participate could do so. All agreed.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at an ARIN Public Policy Consultation 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-2014-5: Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations’ and recommends it for adoption by the ARIN Board of Trustees.”

The Chair called for discussion. RS stated the policy received good public sentiment and believed it should be move forward to the Board.

The motion carried with all in favor, via roll call.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove 7.1 (Maintaining IN-ADDRS)

RS stated this policy has been on the ‘back-burner’ until it can be discussed at the ARIN 34 meeting in October.

The President commented that if a policy is well formed, and that the AC believed it met the principles of the Policy Development Process (PDP) of enabling fair and technically sound address management, then it should become a Recommended Draft Policy. He was not suggesting it be rushed, rather reiterating that a policy should advance based on its maturity per the guidelines, rather than perceived priority being a factor. If it was mature, it should be moved ahead regardless of what other policies were in the queue.

RS responded that he did not believe this policy was quite ready, due to the dispute over prior wording of the text; and, he believed discussion at ARIN 34 was needed before furthering it along in the development process. The President acknowledged RS’s concern.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. HS stated that there were no concerns, and that this policy was ready to move forward. AD did not believe the current policy text fixes the problem statement as defined by the draft; and, it either needed further work, or needed to be abandoned. He was not in support of the motion.

The motion carried 11 in favor, 1 against (AD) via roll call.

10. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-Hijack Policy

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at an ARIN Public Policy Consultation 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-2014-12: Anti-Hijack Policy’ and recommends it for adoption by the ARIN Board of Trustees.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that this policy went though an extended ’last call’ period with no objections to the revisions made, and that several comments were noted supporting said revisions.

The motion carried with all in favor, via roll call.

11. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at an ARIN Public Policy Consultation 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-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum Allocation / Assignment Units to /24’ and recommends it for adoption by the ARIN Board of Trustees.”

The Chair called for discussion. KB stated that the policy went through an extended ’last call’ period with reiterated community support. He noted that one person was against it for very complicated reasons and that they had their own proposal, and this one would affect it. The community, however, was adamant that the minimum reduction only be to a /24. The person against the policy wanted to have ranges added, which would have changed the scope of the policy and complicated the text. Based on what the community as a whole wanted, that should not be in this policy.

HS voiced a concern, pointing out that this policy only went to an ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC), and has not been discussed at an ARIN Public Policy Meeting (PPM). She asked if this was the first policy that has been recommended for ratification by the ARIN Board that has only been seen at a PPC?

KB responded affirmatively and explained that it had also been discussed on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and had the strongest PPML support he had seen in years – more so than what would typically be seen at an ARIN PPM. This motion is based upon those comments received on the PPML and at the PPC.

HS commented that she believed it unusual that a lot of people who had previously never participated before are popping up on the PPML to support this policy – and only this policy and no others.

The Chair pointed out that most respondents were actual small operators, which were at the mercy of their upstream providers at the current time – they are out there. HS stated that she had concern that there was support, all of the sudden, from people that had not been heard from previously, and had not been heard from on any other matters. She believed it an unusual circumstance. She pointed out that the policy was presented only at one PPC, and support was happening in a very short amount of time. She posed the question if the policy had been vetted enough in the community?

OD noted that the participants represented the number of people that felt an urgent need and that had been a long time coming. OD believed that what was being seen was a greater level of hopefulness that ARIN was addressing the needs of small organizations and a larger level of these organization’s participation. He believed to use this, as a basis for delaying the implementation, would be the opposite of the duty of the members of the AC.

RS stated that he understood HS’s concerns, but agreed with OD about people now speaking up about it. He stated that in the past we had protections on the routing table by encouraging organizations to request address space from their upstream providers. It is going to become more difficult to do so, due to the cost associated with getting it. Transfer markets through proxy of upstream providers will be painful. RS did not see a concern with this policy or the support and was in favor of the motion.

The President asked if the AC believed that the supporting participants were not actual participants, or if they were they not actually participating in the discussion? Were there arguments made that the policy was unfair, not impartial, or technically unsound?

The Chair noted that the policy was discussed on the PPML. The President asked if the participants on the PPML had been listening to any contrary arguments made?

KB responded that when the policy was moved from draft policy to recommended draft policy, one person was concerned it would change things. They were asked to clarify and they were silent. During the ’last call’ period, one person was concerned about their own proposal and how it would be affected; but they did not come up with solutions. The community has not opposed this policy, although support was from people who did not regularly post to the PPML. The final clean up of the text received additional support; and, there was no opposition received from anyone other than what has been mentioned on the PPML or at the PPC. No one had brought up radical concerns in the forums held.

The Chair noted that, during the PPC, 49 people were in the room and there were 16 in favor and 0 against. There was concern that all they could receive was a /24, but that was proven not to be true, and there was concern that the new policy was trying to get rid of needs testing for minimum allocations – they did not like it being a /24 rather than a /20.

KB noted one other concern that multi-homing was being removed, but it was not applicable. They wanted it left in, but it was no longer being used. This was the only other concern that was raised.

The Chair stated there was an initial concern on the staff’s side about ambiguity of guidelines, but that it had been clarified.

HS stated that during the PPC, some were concerned about the routing table and someone else mentioned ‘dragging it out before run out’. She noted she was not at the PPC, but had read the notes. The Chair asked her if she was in favor or opposed to the motion on the table. HS stated that she was not comfortable supporting the motion, as the timeframe has been under 60 days, and she did not believe there had been enough discussion on the topic.

SL stated that it was worth noting that while there were concerns voiced at the PPC, participants did not vote against it in the show of hands. He supported the motion.

The motion carried with 11 in favor, 1 against (HS) via roll call.

DA left the meeting at this time, but stated he would return (4:44 pm EDT).

12. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14: Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers

AD stated that JSp has been working on data with regard to transfers, and other markets, on small transfers, and how it would affect transfers for organizations involved. It is pending his analysis at this point. There were quite mixed opinions on the mailing list on the current policy text. AD did not personally believe the text is ready to become a recommended draft policy. A staff and legal review needs to be performed. He asked if the AC believed that could be done at this point, or was further work needed?

KB saw two aspects to ’need’ within the policy: 1) show the need, and justify you can use the space; 2) then there is the test of what need ‘is’, which is the duty of ARIN staff. The question for KB was ‘Can you simplify the needs test through policy, rather than put something in that goes against the principles of Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), and other sections? Had that been reviewed?

AD did not believe it had been reviewed. He had commented at the PPC on the matter, but nothing has been done to add text to address that issue. He asked if KB had text - or if he liked the idea? KB stated he did not like the idea of simplifying the process by throwing out the principles of the NRPM. The needs test is the issue. How do we simplify the test, and not ’needs’ itself? He believed there was better uptake with the people who did not want to see people getting space they did not need.

MM pondered if one could just remove the /24 needs test? AD clarified that it was a /16. MM stated in that case, he would support further work on the text. AD thanked him.

DF stated he did not believe this was ready for staff and legal review. He believed the text needed to be presented at ARIN 34 as a draft policy. He had posted to the PPML in opposition to text – that a definition was needed in a different way. AD asked DF to forward that to him and to JSp. DF agreed to do so.

MM noted that in every resource allocation there was a waiver process. The stakes were too small to apply certain kinds of policy. He suggested for only a /24 or /22 it was not worth the trouble – that was another approach one could take on this policy. The Chair thanked him for the suggestion.

The President addressed AD stating that the needs assessment was based on the run rate of how many addresses an organization needed. ARIN was happy to implement any definition of need that the community wanted, but currently, ARIN was implementing the needs test as defined in policy. An option for simplifying would be maintaining the same definition, but deciding to take service providers of certain categories at their word, rather than requiring supporting documentation per present practice. That leaves at least three alternatives for making it simpler: 1) an easier definition of need overall; 2) no needs test for certain categories; or, 3) no backup documentation for certain categories.

The Chair requested the AC discuss the matter further on their list to assist AD and JSp.

13. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-15: Allow Inter-RIR ASN Transfers

DA rejoined the meeting at this time (4:53 pm EDT).

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2014-15: Allow Inter-RIR ASN Transfers’, for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that the issue of implementation was raised recently, and that the President’s last email to the AC clarified that issue. SL explained that if one received an ASN Regional Internet Registry (RIR) transfer, one could not use it with Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI) with it until such time as a standard method between the RIRS was developed. He understood that reason could be used to oppose the motion, but he did not believe it was a showstopper. He stated that if someone really wanted to transfer out of region, they could, and would lose RPKI. He noted it was not clear if RPKI was going anywhere, and believed that using this to hold up transfers of ASNs to where one wanted to use them was a hypothetical concern.

CA suggested that perhaps a policy should not be implemented that may make it impossible to deploy RPKI in the future. She believed that security in routing and in RPKI are important, and this would break it.

KB expressed his dislike for ‘hanging chads’ in this case. He noted that policies have been removed that were not being utilized. If this policy was in place and could not be implemented due to RPKI not being in place, would this policy sit waiting for funds for co-development, or would it sit there indefinitely? If it was technically not possible, should it sit there?

SL replied that one could transfer in the database. The question was: if RPKI is implemented – can it be done with transferred ASNs?

DF did not support motion. He supported the policy and that it should move forward to be presented and discussed at ARIN 34 in order to address and discuss the technical issues. In the end he would support it, but he was not comfortable with technical issues at hand. He believed since transfers were made to work for IPv4, a way to make them work for ASNs would be found. He stated that if there were a new RIR, there would be ASNs transferred to that new RIR. There have been transfers for legacy space and ERX. He cautioned to move forward slowly and take the time to figure out the best solution.

The President commented that it was important for the AC to make plain to the community if it wanted to have the ability to transfer ASNs, when the resulting transferred ASNs did not work with RPKI. That was one possibility. ARIN’s default approach would be that inter-RIR transfers for ASNs had to be supported by RPKI, just as ARIN confirms that Whois and reverse NDA work for any policies. This means that, by default, the implementation timeline would be delayed for this policy until fully supported in the database, to include RPKI. Work had already been performed to figure out how to handle hierarchal IPv4 and IPv6, as well make transfers work. The corresponding work has not yet been done for ASNs, with respect to transfers, but it could be done. By default, it could be nine months to a year and it would not show up in the NRPM until that time, as implementation of the policy would be inclusive of work that needed to be done on RPKI.

CA asked the President if he needed to have this policy for that work, or should the AC wait? The President stated that work would not get done without a policy that expressed interest in it.

RS stated that, with due respect to President, the implementation schedule, and getting RPKI working with it, is strictly a Board and staff issue. If the AC tried to dictate what work should be done, it would be bounced back as an operational issue. The AC’s evaluation of a proposal should be performed with regard to whether it is a technically sound proposal, as to whether or not it could be implemented. He was not a fan of this proposal, but he did not see holding up community sentiment based on corner case technology and waiting for it to be completed.

The President stated to RS that he agreed with his conclusion. He stated that RPKI is a publication technology that ARIN currently supported for ASNs, IPv4, blocks and the transfer of addresses. He believed the AC should adopt the policy if there is interest by the community. If the AC adopted the policy and presumed it would not be implemented with respect to RPKI, the AC would need to be very clear about it. By default, ARIN would presume that it would have to make it work with all systems including Whois, reverse DNS, RPKI, etc. If the AC believed that the policy needed to be put into the NRPM before RPKI implementation was done, it would need to be stated in the NRPM comments to be considered by ARIN staff and the Board.

SL stated that he would likely withdraw the motion due to this discussion. AD stated that he did not support the motion but believed the policy deserved to be presented and discussed at ARIN 34. OD agreed with AD and believed that progress should be made with regard to a defined solution for RPKI issues before this was implemented as a policy.

HS stated that she agreed with the President’s comments. It was not right or fair to implement it as policy and then have technical issues. It is possible to change the implementation timeline based on pending the RPKI to support it, but it would not be right to put it into the NRPM and have it not be part of the functionality.

KB stated that he was opposed to it, and that the issued problem statement was factually incorrect as it would allow for transfers to and from APNIC, and by not bringing up RPKI, we would not adequately be involving the community with regard to this policy.

SL withdrew the motion on the table, stating that he no longer believed it was the best course of action. MM agreed. The Chair called for any objections. There were no objections. The Chair stated that the motion was withdrawn, and that the policy would be presented and discussed at ARIN 34 in October.

RS requested that item 16 be discussed at this time, his time constraints. The Chair agreed.

16. ARIN-Prop-210: Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments

RS stated it was sent to the AC’s list for review. Minimum allocations once a year – needs testing done that way. Prop changes are clear.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call.

RS left the meeting at this time (5:15 pm EDT). The Chair resumed the agenda.

14. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-16: Section 4.10 Austerity Policy Update

DA stated that work was in progress, and that he would be working with AD.

15. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from Last-Allocation to Total-Aggregate

AD stated that an updated draft had been posted to the PPML and that there had been good discussion. He had requested staff and legal review in order for this to be considered for adoption at the AC’s meeting in August.

16. ARIN-Prop-210: Simplifying Minimum Allocations and Assignments

Previously discussed.

17. Improve Communications Group (ICG)

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

ND provided a brief update with regard to the tool that was suggest to be used by AD, and stated that:

1. We received a reference from pol.is from the organization, and have been making progress.
2. We received the terms and conditions, and they were being reviewed by in-house Counsel.
3. ND would poll interested AC members again and discuss this further sometime next week.

18. Any Other Business

ARIN AC Expense Report Submissions

The President stated that if AC members were more than 90 days overdue on submitting expense reports, to please speak up and explain why at this time. DF responded, apologizing for any problems created by his tardiness, and was hoping to have them done this week.

The Chair stated that most AC members are very diligent about submitting their travel expense reports. The few that delay their submission create additional workload on ARIN staff, which was not fair. He noted that ARIN’s expense process and template was very easy use, and to please not be tardy going forward.

19. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:22 p.m. EDT. HS moved to adjourn, seconded by CA. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.