Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 16 February 2017 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees

• Dan Alexander, Chair (DA)
• Tina Morris, Vice Chair (TM)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• David Huberman (DH)
• Alyssa Moore (AM)
• Amy Potter (AP)
• Joe Provo (JP)
• Leif Sawyer (LS)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• John Springer (JS)
• Chris Tacit (CT)
• Alison Wood (AW)
• Chris Woodfield (CW)

Scribe

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis (ND), COO
• Sean Hopkins, (SH) Policy Analyst
• John Sweeting (JSw), Senior Dir., Registration Services

ARIN General Counsel

• Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. EST. The presence of a quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 27 January 2017, as written.”

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers

DH stated that he had edited the text last month and edits made maintained the spirit of the original policy as discussed during the ARIN 38 Public Policy Meeting (PPM). Additionally, the edits closed a loophole and clarified text for staff and participants in the market. DH read the revised text in Section 8.5.7. He noted that discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) was favorable, and that further discussion can take place at the ARIN 39 PPM in New Orleans in April. He further noted that the staff and legal review was benign.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. The President noted that it may be that the phrase ‘small IPv4 transfers’ is an absolute judgement, and that it was raised in the staff and legal review that it may be more accurate to say ‘smaller’.

The Chair asked if that was the only item in the staff and legal review that was not updated. It was the only item, and the phrase was in the title of the draft policy only.

OD stated that he and DH, as the policy shepherds, discussed the phrase and deemed it not worth changing the title as the folks that were paying attention to this draft policy understood what it meant. He and DH did not believe it was of much concern.

The President stated that given that the policy text did not have that characterization, and it was simply a label in the title of the draft policy, he agreed with OD. He noted that if the phrase was in the policy text, it could be different as there would be implications of characterization. It was his sense that it was fine to leave it as-is. JP agreed that the label was immaterial.

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

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement

CT stated that there were no changes in the status of this draft policy. He believed that more input was needed at ARIN 39 to find out if, in light of objections raised, this draft policy should move forward or be addressed in some other way (another policy proposal). It needed to be discussed in real-time with ARIN members. He stated that no changes were anticipated until after discussion at ARIN 39. The Chair acknowledged CT’s remarks.

DH noted that this draft policy will take a lot of time for discussion at ARIN 39. AM asked if any thought has been given to alternative proposals on this matter. OD stated that there is thought being given to it.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers

JS stated that there has been constructive discussion on the PPML and with the authors and shepherds. The staff and legal review suggested wording changes. He noted that the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) would be changing shortly. JS suggested letting the NRPM changes take place, and then come up with revised text prior to the next AC call in March, hopefully resulting in moving it to Recommended Draft Policy status at that time.

OD asked if this would meet the deadline for presenting it at the ARIN 39 meeting. The Chair asked staff for text deadlines. SH reviewed the timeline with the Council. JS stated he would try his best to get the draft policy text ready within the deadlines in order for it to be presented ARIN 39. The Chair agreed. The Chair asked if there was a draft version of the NRPM that staff could provide to the AC’s list. SH stated he would provide a draft to the AC.

7. ARIN-Prop-235: Clarify Generic References to “IP Addresses” in NRPM

DF stated this was essentially an editorial update to replace the words ‘IP addresses’ with ‘IPv4 addresses’ where appropriate. He stated it has also been revised to eliminate a technical conflict in Section 10. DF noted that the changes to the NRPM would eliminate some items in the proposal as well. He suggested the proposal be considered an editorial change and could perform the search and replace on the phrase after next version of NRPM is generated.

The Chair cautioned the AC that, when suggesting changes to ARIN staff, they be very clear to propose what the change is about. Since this proposal was not yet a draft policy, it was not the AC’s document to edit. He suggested it may be best to remand it to the author for revisions.

OD stated as the author, wearing no AC ‘hat’, had been working with the AC proposal shepherds and concurred with everything suggested thus far to include the current proposed plan of action.

The Chair also believed the change to be editorial in nature, but asked what problem it was trying to solve. OD replied that it was brought to his attention that someone’s attorney could subvert some aspect of the NRPM to apply this language to IPv6. OD believed that clarifying ‘IP addresses’ to ‘IPv4 addresses’ would be best - to avoid any future problems.

The Chair thanked OD for the explanation. The Chair explained that he was cautious about how this policy proposal was handled since OD was an AC member. OD agreed to continue working with the proposal shepherds as he had been.

8. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items. There were no comments. He thanked everyone for an efficient meeting.

9. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:29 p.m. EST. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by JS. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.