Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 September 2015 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

• Dan Alexander, Chair (DA)
• Kevin Blumberg, Vice Chair (KB)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• David Huberman (DH)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Tina Morris (TM)
• Leif Sawyer (LS)
• Heather Schiller (HS)
• Robert Seastrom (RS)
• John Springer (JS)
• Chris Tacit (CT)

Minute Taker:

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
• Einar Bohlin (EB), Senior Policy Analyst
• Nate Davis, COO
• Richard Jimmerson, (RJ), Interim Director, Registration Services
• Leslie Nobile, Sr. Director, Global Registry Knowledge

Counsel

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Regrets

• Cathy Aronson, John Curran, Milton Mueller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged regrets from Cathy Aronson and Milton Mueller.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda and called for any comments. The Chair added a discussion of the upcoming ARIN 36 meeting agenda to Any Other Business. He called for any other comments. JS asked if the CONFER voting system would be discussed. The Chair stated it would be discussed under item 16. ‘Digital Polling Update for October PPM’, prior to Any Other Business. CT stated he would have a trip report written up shortly on APNIC 40, as he attended the meeting.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 20 August 2015, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments

SL stated that this policy was ready for discussion at ARIN 36. The Chair stated that the revised version was posted at the first of September, and that there have been no further comments. SL confirmed that was the case.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients)

CT stated that this policy was ready for discussion and for soliciting input from the community at ARIN 36.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-day Utilization Requirement in End-user IPv4 Policy

LS noted that the staff and legal review was received and posted to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). The only response was from ‘spam’. DF stated that there were minor changes to be made, but he preferred to receive feedback from the community first for direction.

7. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4: Modify Section 8.2 to Better Reflect How ARIN Handles Reorganizations

OD stated that there were no changes to this policy, and that it was ready for discussion at ARIN 36.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out-of-Region Use

TM stated that the plan was to leave the policy in its existing state, but she then received the staff and legal review roughly 30 minutes prior to this meeting and there were some small edits that resulted from the review, though the edits were not substantive. She noted that the policy text had not been circulated on the PPML yet for review of the edits. Counsel noted that the edits were marginal improvements, with no change in the content that was meaningful. He stated that he did not want to hold up the AC’s policy process, and that he believed the policy text could be published with the minor edits.

RJ stated that the major update from staff was that the conflicting instructions to staff were now removed, and that alleviated the staff’s concerns. He thanked the AC for doing so.

As the author of the text, CT stated the edits improved the text without modifying the intent in any way.

The Chair stated that he had not yet had the chance to review the staff and legal review. He believed that revising the text was still inside the window of time to be able to move it to a ‘Recommended Draft Policy’ status. If the meaning of the text had not been changed, the policy could be moved to Recommended Draft Policy status, provided that the AC fulfilled the requirements of the Policy Development Process.

DF stated that he did not want to move the draft policy text to ‘Recommended’. He believed that there was no rush, and that it was better to move it forward slowly. KB agreed, stating that the text is ready with the changes made, but it lacked community support. Currently, he was seeing negativity towards the policy on the PPML. He believed that even if the AC disagreed with him, moving it to a ‘Recommended Draft Policy’ status would bring an ’end’ to the proposal. The community would need to make a decision and it would be the wrong time to do so.

CT stated that he also agreed, and that there was no rush. As the author, he was happy to have the text be presented ‘as-is’ at ARIN 36, and not have pressure to have to deal with it too quickly. The Chair noted that it was a third try at this policy issue, and it needed to be correct in order for it to move forward.

CT stated that he did want to see the changes incorporated and posted as quickly as possible as a draft policy. EB stated the text needed to be frozen right after the changes are made. The Chair asked EB if there was a hard stop for draft text freezes. EB replied ’not technically’, but the ARIN 36 discussion guide is being completed next week and the policy text needs to be included.

OD agreed not to advance the text to ‘Recommended’ and believed that there had been support in general. He understood the concerns and believed that if it did not achieve consensus, it could be worked on as a ‘Recommended Draft Policy’. He was fine with the decision to leave the text as a Draft Policy. OD supported the staff and legal review, as he believed the revisions to be editorial in nature.

SL stated that he largely agreed with the other’s comments, but pointed out that discussion at ARIN 36 will broach several approaches to the problem, especially in the IPv6 world. He believed that, potentially, other proposals may be found as a simpler approach; and, he expressed the need to see which direction the community will want it to go.

RJ stated that staff was careful to state that without a unicode requirement, it could be implemented within three months. The engineering aspect applies if the community places demand on ARIN to adopt unicode.

KB asked RJ if the reason unicode has not be set up was because there was no support shown until now. RJ replied yes, and that all of it was ascii-based up until now. There had been no requests for special characters in the past. The more ARIN internationalizes the utilization of resources from ARIN, there may be a community requirement to support unicode. It would take a period of time to get it prioritized, specified, and deployed. ARIN estimated it would get completed within a year.

JS asked that, with regard to unicode, assuming it is determined to be beneficial to implement, if we permit it in Whois, wouldn’t the records be difficult to utilize in the way the database was intended? KB replied that, specifically looking at it in relation to French, which is widely-spoken in Canada and in the Caribbean, unicode is required to properly deal with French accents. There is a use for it in the ARIN region. KB stated that he hoped that at ARIN 36, the staff can explain that to the members. KB stated that it is not only for out-of-region use; and he would like it to be pointed out that it is useful within the region.

The Chair stated that 2015-5 would remain as a Draft Policy. He directed TM to incorporate the revised text from the staff and legal review to be included in the ARIN 36 discussion guide, stating it would be presented at ARIN 36. TM thanked the AC for the discussion.

In regard to KB’s comments regarding this matter, JS stated that French seems perfectly proportional to implement. However, there are a number of external unicodes that can be included in 2015-6 or 2015-6, and may be a burden in being not completely conversant with staff workload to implement. He believed there was also a difference between implementing French to implementing all the other unicodes.

The Chair asked if this discussion was becoming a key talking point for community consideration, or did the AC see it being handled differently? JS stated he believed it valuable to discuss at ARIN 36, and anticipated that much of the discussion would turn to this issue.

RS stated, to answer JS, in a non-trivial but separate consideration, that there was a separate discussion of the cost benefit to ARIN in ‘unicodifying’ its records. He believed it would be a substantial cost and did not know the benefit. He believed it needed to be separated from the out-of-region use issue. RS further noted that in Japan they cater to English-speaking folks by using Roman characters. There is a benefit and cost to be had from that, and he believed it should be decoupled from the discussion. The Chair stated that it should not prevent the AC from moving forward with the proposals.

SL agreed with RS. He stated that if actual requirements are in the back-end system, then they have to be supported - not as pre-requisite but as a ‘service’ discussion. The staff recommendations do not mean that it is an issue that needs resolution before moving forward.

KB stated that he also wanted to detangle it from the policy text. If it were not required, then it would be a separate discussion. If it was required, then it entangled it.

RJ stated that staff paid careful attention to this matter in both 2015-5 and 2015-6. The clause in 2015-6 was clearer, regarding unicode. He read the clause and stated that only if the policy requires it, will it be an issue. If not, then it will default to the three months.

CT asked if the clause could be added to this policy text as well. ND stated it could be added. He stated that SL was correct in that it should be treated separately. This will be given to the policy shepherds shortly, and made clear. ND and RJ stated they would update the staff assessment in 2015-5 to more clearly state the difference in implementation timelines for unicode and non-unicode implementations, as had been done for 2015-6.

The Chair asked TM to capture this matter in the slides for ARIN 36, and asked the AC to assist. TM agreed and thanked the Chair.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-National Networks

KB stated that no further discussion had taken place on the PPML. The text would be presented as-is at ARIN 36. He noted that having a call with staff and the AC shepherds, after the original staff and legal review, allowed for rapid revisions to the policy and saved a lot of time. He believed it was a very good way to deal with staff’s concerns and suggested continuing to have such calls if the policy shepherds felt the need to do so going forward.

The Chair asked KB if he believed this policy could coexist with 2015-5 if both were implemented. KB stated that it would be difficult. The requirements in each policy are similar but different at the same time. If we codify through 2015-5, KB did not see the necessity for 2015-6 in the same way - unless doing so simplified transfers and he did not believe that to be the case.

EB noted that 2015-5 and 2015-6 would be discussed on Friday of the ARIN 36 meeting consecutively. KB noted that the issue has come up to make this a globally coordinated policy. He pointed out that the community needed to understand what a globally coordinated policy was, the timelines, and the reality of such. KB did not believe a globally coordinated policy would solve the issues these policies address and would consequently ’throw these policies away’.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified Requirements for Demonstrated Need for IPv4 Transfers

RS stated that there were mixed comments and non-support shown on the PPML. RS noted that OD and AD had editorial changes. He noted this Draft Policy would be discussed at ARIN 36. The Chair asked if there were changes resulting from the staff and legal review. RS did not believe there were any changes.

SL suggested incorporating the staff suggestions as part of policy text after the fact. The Chair stated that would be discussed at ARIN 36, and asked not to do so prior to that discussion. SL agreed.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment Records for IPv4 End-Users

CT stated that this text would be presented as-is at ARIN 36 for community feedback. He noted that there had been only one one post for support on the PPML, otherwise discussion had been quiet.

12. ARIN-Prop-223 Eliminating Needs-Based Evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 Transfers of IPv4 Netblocks

LS stated that he and SL had revised confusing language based upon the author’s edits. He believed that it was now ready to be accepted to ‘Draft Policy’ status.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts the proposal entitled, ‘Eliminating Needs-Based Evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 Transfers of IPv4 Netblocks’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. For clarity and future reference, OD pointed out that the author (Dani) pronounced his name as Donny. The Chair thanked him for the clarification.

The motion carried via 12 in favor via roll call vote.

(It was noted that HS had dropped from the call and was unavailable to vote on this item.)

13. ARIN-Prop-224: Minimum IPv6 Requirements

JS stated that he was unsure if ARIN has any business codifying this proposal, but it had the ability to if desired. He noted the proposal was within scope and clear, and he believed that it could be accepted to ‘Draft Policy’ status.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts the proposal entitled, ‘Minimum IPv6 Requirements’ as a Draft Policy.”

HS re-joined the call at this time (4:52 p.m. EDT).

The Chair called for discussion. KB stated that he was opposed to making this proposal into a Draft Policy. He believed it should be remanded to the author due to it being out of scope for the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). He believed that forcing codification of this proposal would be affecting the service offering of IPv6. He stated the proposal may just be poorly worded, but regardless, he did not believe it to be within scope.

JS stated that, with regard to 2015-5, the President had commented that the use of number resources is entirely up to the recipient. ARIN cannot/does not control how or where parties route number resources issued to them. Only if/when they come back for other resources could that impact receiving address space or a transfer from ARIN. JS stated the AC needed to determine if the proposal was in or out of scope, as the proposal would be explaining what happens when someone comes back for additional resources and how said resources are counted.

OD disagreed with KB that the text was out of scope. He did not support the text, but he believed it to be within scope. He believed the text liberalized doing bad things other than what was intended. He believed it was clear and within scope, and should be moved forward.

DF agreed. He stated that one reason ARIN changed PDP was because the Council was abandoning proposals ahead of time because they were not a good idea. While this proposal is not a good idea, it meets the criteria to move forward; and, it can be abandoned at a later time. RS agreed.

KB stated he was in support of the motion to move it forward, and planned on setting the bar low as possible. He was concerned about it, but would give it the benefit of doubt and work through the concern.

The motion carried with 11 in favor, and 2 against (DH, HS) via roll call vote.

14. ARIN-Prop-225: Remove Transfer Language Which Only Applied Pre-Exhaustion of IPv4 Pool

RS stated that he had discussed this with the author. The statement was clear and he believed that it could be accepted to ‘Draft Policy’ status.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts the proposal entitled, ‘Remove Transfer Language Which Only Applied Pre-Exhaustion of IPv4 Pool’ as a Draft Policy.”

Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

15. Services Working Group Update

KB stated that the final iteration of the Charter was finished, and that staff was taking it to the ARIN Board for review. He noted that the Services Working Group should not be a function of the AC alone. ARIN community members need to help and participate as well. The Chair asked if this item was on the agenda for ARIN 36. EB stated there was a time slot for the item on the agenda. ND stated that the Board would be considering the Group at the Board’s next meeting on 9/22. ND stated there were no issues anticipated with the Board supporting this effort. He thanked the AC members involved in the crafting of the Charter.

DF left call at this time (5:05 p.m. EDT).

KB wanted to make sure the AC was not involved during the timeslot of the discussion of the SWG at ARIN 36. EB stated that, in fact, the presenter was KB. KB stated that was counter to what came out of the Charter, but he was happy to talk about it as an involved person. He wanted to make sure he was not overstepping any bounds. ND stated that KB was a ‘placeholder’ presenter at this time, but another person could present the item. Staff will work to finalize the presenter.

16. Digital Polling Update for October PPM

The Chair stated that while attending APNIC 40, it was noted that APNIC used of the CONFER voting system. CT had mentioned he would include it in his trip report, and noted that APNIC has been using the system for a while. It also had triggered a discussion during the ARIN 35 Meeting.

EB stated that staff has set up Survey Monkey for the upcoming ARIN 36 meeting. He explained that at the end of each meeting day a poll of the policy drafts presented that day would be taken, and would run to the start of the AC meeting on Friday. The results will be provided to AC. It will be a very simple poll with the question of ‘for or against’ for each proposal for the attendees to answer.

AD asked if there would be the ability to comment on a policy. EB stated that that option would not available at this time. The point is to compare the in-person show of hands with the digital poll to see the differences of counting votes. The digital poll is a first-step exercise.

OD pointed out that this exercise would only show different people doing the voting. In this instance, a random group votes similarly to other random group of people. He was uncertain that the data would be useful.

KB stated that one thing that was looked into was opening it to anyone. It is not a replacement for the show of hands. Complete anonymity is not an option at this point. If this data is identical or close, or mimics, then one issue is: are the people polled not voting in room because they can’t be anonymous?

OD asked how are ARIN was guaranteeing the same group of people are voting? KB stated that they would be registered attendees. OD pointed out that it would be a super-set possibly. KB asked if people could be in the room that did not register? OD believed so. ND stated it was unlikely, as ARIN requires registration. OD believed that not everyone that registered is in the room, and there may be people in room who did not register.

The Chair asked OD if he did not like that there would be the additional data, or that there may not be a direct correlation between the two sets of numbers? OD stated that he was not opposed to the poll, but comparison to determine whether anonymity yields the same result as not, does not result in the same conclusion.

The Chair pointed out that one way was not replacing the other – it was an exercise to note if there is useful data that a show of hands does not provide. OD understood, but believed that all it would be providing was that you have different voters. JS did not believe that could be concluded.

In the interest of time, the Chair stated that the discussion could continue off line.

13. Any Other Business

ARIN 36 Meeting

The Chair reminded the AC that the ARIN 36 Public Policy Meeting would take place on October 8 and 9 in Montreal. He asked that the AC members who were working on slides get them in early to staff.

The Chair noted that at each ARIN meeting, staff provides the introduction to Recommended Draft Policies with regard to their background and the staff and legal reviews performed. When the AC uses the standard slide template they rehash that information and it is redundant. The Chair asked the AC to shift the focus of the slide presentations to the pros and cons of each policy text, and the comments from the PPML. Focus on these topics so as not to duplicate staff’s introduction. The AC agreed.

KB stated that some slide decks have 15 slides and there would only be 20 minutes to present. He clarified that he was trying to determine the timeframe to present because if all the policies take 20 minutes, the AC would run out of time. He asked, “What is the average time allotted for presenting?” The Chair stated he would discuss with EB and get back to AC with time requirements.

KB asked if there were any policy shepherds that would not be attending ARIN 36. HS stated she would not be attending.

Status of ARIN’s IPv4 Pool

RS stated to RJ that, according to counter set on the ARIN webpage, ARIN has about 30 /24s left. Is ARIN out of IPv4? RJ stated that the information on the webpage updates every evening. We are very close. Once it reaches zero, in the very near future, the counter will be removed; and, a statement indicating ARIN’s IPv4 free pool had depleted will be posted.

18. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:25 p.m. EDT. JS moved to adjourn, seconded by RS. The motion adjourned with no objections.