Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 April 2018 [Archived]

Miami, Florida

Advisory Council Attendees:

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

Scribe:

• Sean Hopkins

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis (ND), COO
• Sean Hopkins (SHo), Policy Analyst
• Richard Jimmerson, (RJ) Chief Information Officer
• John Sweeting (JSw), Senior Director, Registration Services

Regrets

• Stephen M. Ryan, Esq., ARIN General Counsel

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:56 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The President acknowledged regrets from ARIN’s General Counsel.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the Agenda with the AC and called for any comments. There were no comments. The Chair asked that any AC members with changes to their employer, or employment status, update their biographies on the ARIN website. The President concurred.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of March 15, 2018, as written.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Information Item

The Chair noted that the community review period for the Proposed Editorial Update to the NRPM (formerly ARIN-Prop-251: Correct References to Rwhois) will end on #### 5. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-3: Update to NRPM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation

AP stated that an editorial change will be made to the title of this policy. She further stated that there was a large amount of positive feedback from the community with one issue raised. She stated it was the fact that this policy leaves out Point of Contact records (POCs) that are associated with indirect assignments and reassignments. AP further stated that she would like to include language stating that POC validation emails should continue to be sent out for one year after implementation. AD noted that the text included references to Whois and asked if such references should instead say “directory service”, as the Registry Data Access Protocol (RDAP) has been implemented alongside Whois. DF stated that many other references to Whois exist inside the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). AD noted that a future editorial change could be used to address these references.

CW stated that the AC had sent recommended draft policies to last call in the past with editorial changes; and, he asked if such changes addressing Whois references should be included. The Chair stated that if the intent of this policy is changed substantively, this policy would revert to draft policy status after the last call period.

DF stated that a NRPM-wide editorial proposal addressing all Whois references would be best. OD stated that this particular policy deals specifically with the ARIN database, making the Whois references more accurate. JP concurred.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-3: Update to NRPM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation’ to Last Call with the proposed implementation instruction that POC validation emails continue to be sent as normal for one year after implementation.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD asked if staff could assure the AC that this implementation direction would be followed. The President stated that the suggested implementation will happen if the AC requests it.

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

6. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. CT stated that there was strong support on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), and at the ARIN 41 Public Policy Meeting (PPM). He noted that this was seen as a good first step to those community members who felt more work was needed beyond the scope of this policy. CT further stated that the text met the criteria of an Internet number resource policy and should be moved forward.

The Chair announced the results of the straw poll for Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2017-12: 77 in the room and 14 remote, there were 30 in favor and one against. AD stated that the staff and legal review was lengthy, and asked what information was needed at this stage. The President stated that many issues that had been brought up from the staff and legal review have already been addressed. AD stated that it appeared as though several remained, including the question regarding use of an abuse contact prior to insertion. The President noted that there would be no full Organization Identifier record (Org ID) in question for reassignments, but rather a single POC. The issue that arises through implementation is the challenging way it is currently conducted. He further stated that current text calls for automated requests to be held while a 10-day process happens, and a queue would build, as opposed to not allowing the request, until said process had already concluded - or completing the request and reverting it, if the process did not conclude. He stated that a 10-day queue time could build significantly; and, it would have a large code impact. While clear consensus existed, the work involved in implementation was significant.

CW stated that he believed the prescribed workflow to be fairly common among web-based signup forms, in that an email validation was required, but it raises a question of how to treat a Shared Whois Project (SWIP) with an invalid email address. He further stated that he believed the invalid email issue to be an implementation detail. The President stated that the request is in fact not fully approved, unlike web account creation. He further stated that this workflow is indeed uncommon for a registry because it creates new states for resources: for example, if one looks at a set of reassignments and notes that some would be approved but are now pending approval due to a new POC, the question arises of whether or not those resources are available for redistribution. CW suggested that validation should be part of the approval transaction, and that a locked state may be appropriate in this case, as one should not be able to reassign the space in this state. The President stated that in that case, the status and availability of resources would be dependent upon an email response.

DF believed that this policy contained more procedure than it perhaps should, and that while in some cases policy and procedure should work in lock step, he did not believe that this was one of those instances. He further stated that implementation guidance should be provided to staff. He stated that he would be happy to update the text to deliver such guidance.

The President stated that if this policy was implemented in such a way that POCs could be simply initiated and await confirmation, ARIN customers’ automated workflows would suffer, as they would be unlikely to presume such behavior. He further stated that staff will implement this policy as written, because implementing in any other way posed a risk of complication for automated external systems. DF stated that even as currently written, such a risk exists.

JS asked if the implementation has increased in complication since the posting of the staff and legal review was conducted. The President said that no further complications have arisen. JS stated that the AC had been aware of the extensive workload that this policy would require since February. He noted that if the implementation posed enough of a problem, then the Board could suspend the policy. The President stated that indeed the Board could intercede in such a situation.

JS further stated that there had been significant support for this policy and that he appreciated the emphasis on the severity of the implementation workload. AP stated that the implementation workload is irrelevant to whether or not the AC should forward the policy to a last call period. OD stated that serializing queued requests so that new requests replace old ones should somewhat ease implementation.

The President stated that the implementation also requires tools and process methods to help ARIN’s registration services staff deal with SWIP requesters. OD stated that adding more states to a given request workflow is not impossible. The President stated that the question was whether or not the resources involved in these requests are considered utilized, handling cancelled reassignments, reporting status of resources throughout ARIN online, etc.
OD stated that the 10-day hold time was not as long as some other requests take. The President stated that while that is true, this workflow adds complexity to existing internal processes. CW stated that an alternative way of stating that reassignments cannot be made until POCs are validated may be useful, but implementation details may also come out of a consultation. DF stated that he would be in favor of such a consultation. JS asked DF if the need for a consultation would impact DF’s vote on the motion. DF stated that it would not, and that implementation work would likely need to wait until support was more solid. JP stated that support, while strong, was not unanimous and that non-trivial opposing views still existed, specific to implementation. JP stated he would support advancing this policy, as written, and would support a consultation concerning its implementation.

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

7. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the Definition of Community Network

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend Community Networks” to Last Call."

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that this policy received strong support in the room. The Chair stated that there were 93 people in the room, and nine remote participants and that there were 29 in favor, and none against. DF stated that there were no negative comments received regarding this version of the policy.

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

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4 ISP Transfers

DF stated that this was a controversial policy within the community.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2017-9: Clarification of Initial Block Size for IPv4 ISP Transfers’”

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated that abandoning this policy may be premature, as both 2017-9 or 2018-2 needed work, and he believed 2018-2 to be a step in the wrong direction. He further stated that he intended to advance 2018-2 if the motion on the table fails. DF stated that his read of the community is that they are seeking guidance on which path is best, and that he concurred with OD.

CW stated that he seconded the motion to focus harder on 2018-2. AD stated that his motion was born out of his better understanding of 2017-9, and his belief that 2018-2 is the better path forward, despite it requiring more documentation for ISPs. He further stated that he would like to see the solutions in 2018-2 be kept as uncomplicated as possible.

The Chair stated that when the straw poll was conducted asking for the community’s preference between 2017-9 and 2018-2, 10 were in favor of 2017-9 and 14 were in favor of 2018-2.

The motion carried with 12 in favor (AD, AM, AP, JP, KR, LS, RS, CT, AT, AW, CW, TM), two against (OD, JS), and one abstention (DF).

The President clarified that by not registering a vote in favor or against, DF should be recorded as an abstention.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2018-2: Clarification to ISP Initial Allocation and Permit Renumbering

KR stated that there were signs of confusion in the community on this policy, and more feedback would be needed. She noted that because the issues with the text are IPv4-specific, today’s community may not be as willing to work through them. KR further stated that the AC’s role is to make processes easier and asked if abandoning this policy to spur conversation would be acceptable.

DF stated that one of the two Draft Policies (2017-9 and 2018-2) needs to move forward. He further stated that this policy would see additional work and presentation. AT stated that now that 2017-9 had been abandoned, more traction and responses are likely on 2018-2. The Chair noted that the language could use clarification. AM stated that it had become clear that agreement on NRPM sections needed to be improved. She further stated that community members who are new to the NRPM could be confused and simplifying policy language should be a focus of the AC. JS stated that the community appeared to be more enamored with 2018-2.

It was moved by JS that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends Draft Policy ‘ARIN-2018-2: Clarification to ISP Initial Allocation and Permit Renumbering’, for adoption.”

The motion was not seconded; therefore, JS withdrew the motion.

CT asked if a staff and legal review should be requested at this time. KR stated that the language should be worked on further before a staff and legal review is requested. OD stated that significant work on the language was needed.

10. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-10: Repeal of Immediate Need for IPv4 Address Space (NRPM Section 4.2.1.6)

AD stated that this is a clean-up policy and saw no opposition from the community.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-10: Repeal of Immediate Need for IPv4 Address Space (NRPM Section 4.2.1.6)’ to Last Call.”

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

11. Proposed Editorial Change to Number Resource Policy Manual. (Formerly 2017-11: Reallocation & Reassignment Language Cleanup)

AM stated that there had been no comments received on the editorial change during the community review period.

It was moved by AM, and seconded by AW, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances the proposed editorial change to the Number Resource Policy Manual formerly titled ‘ARIN-2017-11: Reallocation & Reassignment Language Cleanup’ to the Board of Trustees for adoption.”

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

12. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-13: Remove ARIN Review Requirements for Large IPv4 Reassignments/Reallocations

JS noted that this policy enabled fair and impartial number resource policy, is technically sound, and has community support.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-13: Remove ARIN Review Requirements for Large IPv4 Reassignments/Reallocations’ to last call.”

The Chair called for discussion. JS stated that this policy had received substantial support and no opposition at ARIN 41, and received majority support on the PPML. He further stated that the only comment on the text outside of support was one stating that there may be benefit to keeping the provision as an optional check instead of its complete removal.

The Chair noted the floor count for this policy with 92 in the room and eight remote participants, 29 in favor, and none against.

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

13. Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-Regional ASN Transfers

AW stated that issues with the text that kept it from advancing previously have been addressed, including IANA and PTI considerations, and 2-byte versus 4-byte ASN considerations.

It was moved by AW, and seconded by CT, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2018-1: Allow Inter-Regional ASN Transfers’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. AD asked if all five of the Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) agreed on the method to complete inter-regional ASN transfers, and what the process would look like. The President stated that, if adopted, ARIN would work with the other RIRs during implementation. He further stated that currently there are similar systems and processes in place for handling IP address space, and that the work involved is not insurmountable.

AD stated that previous proposals for Inter-RIR ASN transfer have been met with hesitation regarding staff workload; and, he asked if circumstances had changed. The President stated that the workload for staff would be the same as before.

JSw stated that one major change in the RIRs is the addition of a global trust anchor. The President stated that the RIRs have agreed to implement a 0/0 trust anchor for RPKI due to the fragility of the validation algorithm inside RPKI, and this precludes moving to a global trust anchor. The President also noted that the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF) has finally begun to reconsider the RPKI validation algorithm to determine if the effort to change it is worthwhile.

The Chair called for an executive session at this time (2:21 p.m. EDT). The Chair resumed the meeting at 2:24 p.m. EDT.

JP stated that he had not always supported this policy, as it seemed like market for market’s sake, and issues remain with merger and acquisition transfers.

The motion carried with 13 in favor (AD, DF, AM, AP, KR, LS, RS, JS, CT, AT, AW, CW, TM) and two against (OD, JP).

14. ARIN-Prop-253: Remove Reallocation Requirements for Residential Market Assignments

JP stated that he had consulted with the author of the proposal and noted that it was clear, fair, and impartial.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-253: Remove Reallocation Requirements for Residential Market Assignments’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

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

15. ARIN-Prop- 254: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

CW stated that recently, in the RIPE NCC region, a request to use provider independent space to distribute /64s to wireless hotspots was denied because issuing a /64 to a third-party user was seen as a sub-assignment. He further stated that the author had submitted this proposal to all five of the RIRs and the problem statement is clear. CW stated that the language may not cover all use cases, but could be moved to draft policy status, as written.

It was moved by CW, and seconded by AM, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-prop-254: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that the problem statement may not be as valid in the ARIN region as in other regions, but despite the large workload in taking it on, he would be willing to work on it. OD stated that while the return on investment may be low, the clarifications provided in the text could help clarify NRPM nuances for those new to the text. AM stated that this proposal could serve as an exercise in viewing ARIN policy through a privacy lens.

CW stated that this proposal may not be necessary because previous policy did not require /64s to be sub-assigned, and that the only remaining concern was whether or not hot spots should be eligible for /64s. He further stated that a new RFC had been written which defined a best practice for assigning hosts /64s. DF stated that CW was referring to RFC 8273, which was for informational purposes.

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

16. ACSP Suggesting Unification of RIR Policy Proposal Submission System

The President noted that a suggestion had been submitted to ARIN by Jordi Palet, as a result of him submitting similar proposals to each RIR and noting the differences in processes and templates. He further stated that because the suggestion involved changes to tools that support the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), the suggestion had been closed and referred to the AC for consideration. The President stated that based upon feedback from the AC, a community consultation would be opened to initiate community discussion. He asked if there were any changes requested for the process of proposal submission, and if the AC would like ARIN to work with other RIRs to align proposal templates, forms or processes.

DF stated that a web form and coordinating with other RIRs may be helpful, although he stated that the forms did not necessarily need to align. OD stated that the differences between proposal templates are significant, as are the differences in the PDPs, and levels of staff involvement. He further stated that he did not believe the workload necessary to align the five proposal submission systems would have enough return on investment to be justified. The President stated that efforts are underway to increase the use of common terminology among all five RIRs, especially with shared statistics, but policy manual simplification notwithstanding, harmonizing and aligning proposal submissions would be a rather difficult task and not worthwhile unless there is strong community support.

17. Any Other Business

The Chair stated that all recommended draft policies (including any of the newly-advanced recommended draft policies) that have changes leading into a last call period will need statements from the respective AC shepherds of those policies.

The Chair further stated that staff is conducting teleconference quality tests with the AC’s Caribbean council members and advised the AC to reach out to SH if they would like to be involved.

18. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 2:39 p.m. EDT. JS moved to adjourn, seconded by LS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.