Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 09 October 2015 [Archived]

Montreal, Quebec

Advisory Council Attendees:

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

Scribe:

• Einar Bohlin, (EB) Sr. Policy Analyst

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis, COO
• Richard Jimmerson, (RJ) CIO & Interim Director, Registration Services

Regrets

• Heather Schiller, Stephen M. Ryan, ARIN General Counsel

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 3:20 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged regrets sent by HS.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. The Chair added discussion of the ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC) at NANOG in February and the January AC face-to-face meeting to AOB. The Chair also stated that the new digital polling results could be used during draft policy discussions, but should not be the basis of any decisions made.

3. Approval of the Minutes

Approval of the Minutes. DH noted a misattribution in the September minutes, “DF” needs to be changed to “JS” on item 2.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 17 September 2015, as amended.”

The Chair called for comments. 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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1 Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. DH noted that there had been community support for the draft. KB reviewed the show of hands results from the Public Policy Meeting. SL stated that he would look for editorial suggestions during last call, which the AC can consider do after last call. KB noted that there was a suggestion to make the criteria even lower. SL agreed, however he stated that there was support for moving this draft forward now with the stated criteria.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

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

CA stated that she and CT would continue to work on the text.

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

DF stated the intent to work on an editorial review and advance this as a Recommended Draft Policy (RDP) at a future meeting.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4: Modify Section 8.2 to Better Reflect How ARIN Handles Reorganizations’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. AD stated that the proposal was almost editorial, and that the policy change is not substantial, but the AC wanted to make use of the full process to confirm that this small change had the support of the community. DF agreed, noting that this was a case of AC acting with an abundance of caution. KB reviewed the show of hands results from the Public Policy Meeting (PPM).

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out-of-Region Use’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. TM noted that there was good support during the lunch table topics discussions, and at the Public Policy Meeting. KB reviewed the show of hands results. AD asked if there would be changes between now and next April. TM did not think the text would change. OD noted this would go to the ARIN PPC at NANOG before the April ARIN meeting. The Chair stated that taking drafts to the ARIN PPC would be discussed later.

JS commended the author and shepherds on their good work. MM asked if the process could be accelerated. The President noted that only RDPs are eligible to go to last call after a policy meeting. The Chair noted that ARIN PPCs can speed the process, but had not gotten the sense this had to be done at this time. DF noted that this was an extremely important policy, and cautioned the AC to take it a step at a time.

KB stated he was amazed by how accepting the community was, but this has gone through a number of iterations and hoped it continued to gain support. He noted it was necessary to give the community time to digest the news. TM noted that the AC discussed advancing this to a RDP on the last AC call, but it did not have the necessary support, and that now it does.

CA suggested that perhaps this could be a regular talk at NANOG; and, to take this draft to the full plenary. TM supported that suggestion. The Chair noted that NANOG would be supplemental discussion. Per the Policy Development Process (PDP), the draft must go to an ARIN PPC or PPM as a RDP in order to advance to last call. OD stated that he would be happy to see this go to last call. CT and SL agreed.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

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

KB stated that he planned to leave this as a draft policy (DP) and work on issues with the text. He wanted to work with the author and staff on the ambiguity in the policy text, and noted support to keep this on AC’s docket until 2015-5 is concluded one way or the other. KB stated that he preferred 2015-5.

MM asked if jurisdictional text from 2015-5 could be added to 2015-6 - could the texts be harmonized? KB explained that a policy that dealt with transfers was thought to be a good backup if 2015-5 did not move forward. DF noted that the issued is IPv6. SL supported putting 2015-6 on the back shelf, so it would not distract from the 2015-5 discussion. MM concerned that 2015-6 might be delayed then, if 2015-5 does not advance. JS, as a policy shepherd, welcomed submission of text and keeping this draft policy on the shelf.

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

RS noted a plurality slightly opposed, but would like to work on the text. He also noted that this might be overtaken by events. DH, as co-author of proposal, indicated surprise with the discussion; and stated that it was supposed to be that if you had a two-year need, you could get that address space. The 50% does mean twice the space, but that’s not what was intended. We need to fix this, fix the math, and this can advance. DH wanted to submit a revision to fix the math problem, reframe the discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), and regain support.

SL noted that the staff assessment stated that they would continue to use Section 4 criteria to evaluate requests, which is not what was intended. The AC needed to work with staff. AD stated that people liked this as a bridge to a more relaxed policy in the future, but it has stumbling blocks that need to be eliminated.

MM suggested that if DH’s proposed changes could be done quickly, how quickly could this become a RDP? SL stated that this could go with revisions to the ARIN PPC at NANOG, and then it could go to the April meeting as a RDP. MM asked if the only change was from 50 to 80%? DH stated that they did not intend to introduce a doubling of the requested amount; need to work on the text.

The Chair asked if there was a sense of urgency with this text. MM stated that as a general matter, simple changes should be done faster. He stated that some complain of the time it takes to pass policy. He viewed this as an uncomplicated change. SL stated that he intended that 50% would relax the needs assessment; 80% would also relax the assessment. The President asked if the attestation was supposed to be sufficient by itself, i.e. without any technical justification? DH stated that the engineer would present the request to management; management would sign off. DH agreed the text needed work. SL stated that the engineer would present the justification, attested by management, and the intent was that would suffice for ARIN. The President noted that if the organization wanted to commit fraud, the officer would attest to the engineer’s work.

KB spoke of the emergency PDP as an option to move things along; and, noted that drafts are moving at normal speed. JS asked about delays and petitions in the PDP. AD noted that the community might petition to advance a Draft Policy to a RDP after 90 days. The President noted that the petition to advance to recommended status requires 15 people from 15 organizations. CT stated that this could move to a RDP later this year, after revised text was posted to PPML and comments reviewed by the AC. SL stated that he would not advance this to a RDP based solely on the feedback from the PPML.

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

CT asked for feedback from colleagues - should work continue or should this be abandoned? DH opposed abandoning, noting that it was an operational issue that needed work. KB stated that the problem statement needed to be reworded, noting that RWhois could already be used by end-users; that needed to be approved or closed. The President noted that ARIN has been flexible in this regard, and that 42 end-users use RWhois. He noted that they often use it for entry of geo-location information. CA asked that if end-users are using RWhois, why can’t they use SWIP? The President indicated that while ARIN has accommodated them via RWhois, a clear policy would be preferred.

AD found support for the existing problem statement, support for work in this area and believed the discussion was valuable with regard to the future of ARIN services, especially post IPv4 exhaustion; and, with IPv6. OD wanted to abandon the policy, but was willing to see more work on it. MM reviewed the online poll and found that some were in favor and some against, meaning that the AC should continue to work on the policy. CT was grateful for the guidance and stated that he would continue working on the text with the author, and OD, and he asked for text suggestions.

12. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating Needs-Based Evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 Transfers of IPv4 Netblocks

LS thanked SL for presenting the policy at ARIN 36. SL stated that the AC received good feedback, and that the community is coming around to the idea that something needs to be done - not this, but it was clear that the AC should work on the matter. He intended to split the policy into two: one item with the “8.2 return” portion, and the other item he would work with the author to get more input and make revisions to the rest of the proposal. DH stated that the author is looking for an online group to work on the text. KB was excited that the author wanted to work on this, however the shepherds should reach out, hold a conference call, make use of staff, etc.

The President noted that as this is a DP, it is good to collaborate with the original author if available but, to be clear, draft policies belong to the AC. SL stated that the AC might split this policy, or get a new proposal. Take advantage of the author’s lead on this. KB suggested that an AC member submit a new proposal.

The Chair asked that all policy shepherds that have stated intent to revise their drafts work on text ,and be prepared for discussion of them at the November meeting.

13. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10: Minimum IPv6 Requirements

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2015-10: Minimum IPv6 Requirements’.”

The Chair called for discussion. JS noted that there was no support for the draft. DH agreed, noting that even the original author stated that he was not in favor.

The President reviewed the PDP requirements for draft policies, including that they be clear and ’technically sound’. DF noted that, in the past, the AC had abandoned some policies before the community saw them, but that was not the case here. The President stated that the AC must talk to the author to make sure the AC understands what the author wanted; it’s a shepherd-author cycle.

SL noted that the problem statement was clear and in scope. SL stated that the AC did not have an obligation to clean up the text before it was brought to ARIN 36. The AC received feedback at the PPM that the community nor the author were in favor. The President agreed that the problem statement was clear, even if the policy needed work. OD stated it was clear and not out of scope; and, now the AC needs to abandon it. The Chair noted that the AC is here for the community, and should err on the side of giving the community a chance to present and discuss their ideas.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

14. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove Transfer Language Which Only Applied Pre-Exhaustion of IPv4 Pool

MM asked for a sense of AC regarding the discussion at the PPM. AD noted confusion about what this policy intended to do, even about what was being struck. He pointed out that this doesn’t remove the anti-flip policy because another policy paragraph had anti-flip text. He stated that he was okay with advancing this either at this time, or later.

OD stated it was no-op, but there was confusion, and the AC should move it forward. KB stated that nobody liked the text, but it’s not no-op because we have CI and other space. He supported abandonment. KB also noted that the question of ‘what is exhaustion?’ was raised, even if that’s a different proposal, is it a state or an event?

SL stated that the AC needed to strike the inoperative text, as exhaustion had occurred. He stated that LACNIC recently went through a similar issue, where some thought the reserve pool meant they were not exhausted, which was incorrect. The Chair noted that the staff and legal assessment had not yet been performed.

The President noted that exhaustion is a single event that has occurred, and that the present policy text in the NRPM is therefore a no-op now, and going forward. If that is not the AC’s intent, and they believe that policy text should again be operative if we somehow in the future have resources in the IPv4 free pool, then the AC should work on a policy to change that.

DF reiterated that there was much confusion, and believed the AC needed to work with staff. DH disagreed, saying there were many other policies to work on, and the AC didn’t need to work on this – it is too small by itself. NRPM clean up overall is required, and this would be a part of that. MM stated that author noted confusion among community, and that was reason to get rid of the policy text. He was in favor of requesting the staff and legal assessment. The Chair requested staff and legal for 2015-11.

15. Results of Digital Polling Exercise at ARIN 36

KB noted the results mimicked the in-person polls, though there was need to align the questions and some other issues to work out. TM liked the concept, but noted that since one can share the link, the poll could be manipulated. She liked the anonymity, but believed there was a need to make unique links for each user.

SL disliked the question “Should we continue to work on this?” He stated that the poll questions were satisfactory, but they could use minor tweaking to get the general sense of the community. He liked getting input on every single draft without having to do in-person show of hands.

DH was against doing this with email during this busy week, as mail gets lost. He stated that more inclusiveness from those who cannot raise their hands was desirable and liked APNIC’s CONFER polling software. He suggested using something modern. KB stated, with regard to CONFER, that it is easy to manipulate the will of the group. DH respected that point. KB asked if in general is a secondary system something we should use?

JS asked if Survey Monkey had a statement on validation and data integrity? He stated that a wording congruence requirement would go astray; he liked having the extra data. DF stated the need to keep trying. AD pointed out that we heard less voices by raw numbers and we need to retool and go back. This was not communicated well with the people in the room. We could halt for five minutes and tell people to do the poll.

OD let’s test something similar to CONFER, with the same people, the same questions and the same time constraints. The President stated that if the AC’s goal is anonymity and concern with influence, the polling results do not have to be displayed in real-time. Also, the AC has to decide on its requirements regarding questions polled - two polls asking different questions could be confusing.

The Chair asked if there was a problem statement. KB stated that he was just receiving information, and maybe this could replace the show of hands. He would look for a more similar system to the show of hands. He agreed that email was not acceptable. The Chair stated that the potential goals are anonymity and to broaden the scope of participants. The AC needed to figure out what it wanted. KB stated that his goal was anonymity. The Chair suggested working on the problem statement.

MM stated that the AC got a sense of opinion where there was no show of hands. This is not a survey, it is a poll: like/dislike/don’t care. That’s good information. Please expand your problem statement to get larger sense of community. The problem was not email - it was a problem with time. Take five minutes, and let everybody go vote on this policy.

KB stated that the in person show of hands was conducted correctly on the drafts, where it was necessary; and it would have been nice to do that for all, but there was not enough time. SL suggested that replacing the show of hands with targeted questions, and a general poll to get sentiment with same questions for all - those are two separate things. JS stated that that replacing the show of hands is not a ‘done deal’. He pointed out that the AC just abandoned 2015-10, which did not have a show of hands.

JS asked what are we trying to get, different people, same people? JS also was against question, “Should we continue working on something?” stating that it’s presumptive, and the AC does not need permission to continue work on something.

The Chair stated that we should ask, “Should we abandon this?” TM stated that APNIC has not given up the show of hands due in part to the fact that CONFER software did not have an app. It does have nice features, including levels of support, and real time results. CT suggested the poll could ask about both the problem statement and the proposed policy. The President pointed out that when standards bodies do ballots, if you check no, you have to state why; and, is there anything that could change your no to a yes? Perhaps with a survey you can figure out how to get people to say no and explain why.

16. ARIN Services Working Group Update

The Chair noted this was covered during the PPM.

13. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

Upcoming ARIN ARIN at NANOG in February

The Chair noted that the Call For Proposals might be in the middle of October, and conclude before the next AC call. The AC should decide if they wanted to hold an ARIN PPC. He posed: Do we want it, do we need it?

OD believed that ARIN should hold a PPC. There is a RDP that should move forward. A policy that comes to an ARIN meeting as a Draft and gets overwhelming support and becomes an RDP - this kind of draft can go to an ARIN PPC as a RDP. In general, we should continue doing PPCs and fine-tune them to address community concerns.

The Chair asked which drafts should be discussed. OD believed everything on the AC’s docket should be discussed. DF agreed with OD, stating it would be a shame to eliminate the ARIN PPCs. He didn’t believe it should be a requirement that the AC cover everything, and should try to focus what we do there.

KB stated that there have been discussions with the NANOG Program Committee (PC), and we’ve come closer, but need to make the ARIN PPC attractive for NANOG member attendance, interesting to the operator community. Historically the ARIN PPC is similar to the ARIN PPM, but it is the wrong format for NANOG. Historically the AC brought one policy as an RDP to an ARIN PPC and then advanced it. In that case, there was unanimous support on the PPML, and at the meeting, which justified doing what we did.

CT stated he had not yet attended an ARIN PPC, but we should not slow down the process for items that are ’low risk’. It is post exhaustion, and we need to be more responsive, using the ARIN PPC as necessary.

JS was in favor of both of the non-October ARIN PPCs, and wanted to keep the option of advancing items at ARIN PPCs. DH stated that we need to fight to get operator feedback in our discussions. He liked CA’s idea about taking 2015-5 and presenting it in the plenary, tailored in non-boring way, to obtain operator input.

The Chair clarified the question was specifically about having the February ARIN PPC, do we want an ARIN PPC in February? TM supported bringing one draft to the plenary and keeping the ARIN PPC. She suggested not cramming them all into the ARIN PPC, but rather bringing a few along with an interesting topic.

AD supported DH’s suggestion. Not to present everything, but the drafts that are time sensitive, and relevant. The President stated that in general the AC could get input from any fora that it wishes. By definition an ARIN PPM is a PPC that covers every draft. An ARIN PPC is has specific requirements, in that it is open to participation to anyone without charge, has remote participation, and you can conduct polls for support. A draft policy has to go before an ARIN PPC to advance it to recommended draft policy. The Board has approved ARIN holding PPCs at NANOG meetings.

CA stated it was more important to get the NANOG feedback than even present at the ARIN PPC, because we need that feedback for this proposal from NANOG. RS stated that he attended NANOG meetings before coming to ARIN meetings. There are people who cross over back and forth to ARIN and NANOG meetings. There are many who do not cross over. NANOG folks asks him how he can do policy, some just don’t want to do it. The reason they do not attend is because they don’t care to. If we put this on the plenary, they will leave the room. CA stated that ARIN topics could be submitted and accepted by the NANOG PC. RS stated that we should continue to make ARIN PPCs available.

The Chair reiterated the ARIN PPC in February, stating that the AC needed to decide in the next month whether to have one or not. Then we can decide what to take. SL agreed to take the timely and relevant items. Scale it down from what we’ve done in the past. He agreed to the AC trying to 2015-5 in the plenary. OD stated that the AC should consult on items needing advancement, and then use open mike on whatever policies people want to talk about in the room. DH asked about travel and attendance to ARIN PPCs - that AC members should be able to go. The President stated that presently that is not budgeted and for the AC to decide on what they wanted so that the President could propose such to the Board. TM suggested that the policy shepherds of the relevant drafts should go.

AC Face-to-Face Meeting January 2016

The President stated that the meeting would take place in January in Northern Virginia, and that the hotel was contracted. The President stated that there had been some discussion about having the Board and AC meet together, but that was not the plan in 2016. AC members discussed the 2016 AC meeting location. Some believed that AC was awaiting staff to get back to them with feasibility and suggestions on location. Virginia was a long trip for some, making a one-day meeting into a minimum of three days. Board member, Paul Andersen, stated that the Board alternated east and west coasts every year for their meetings. The Chair stated that the AC would like to alternate coasts and meet on the west coast in January 2016. The President agreed to research such and report back to the AC promptly.

18. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 6:40 p.m. EDT. JS moved to adjourn, seconded by DH. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.