Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 May 2018 [Archived]

OUT OF DATE?

Here in the Vault, information is published in its final form and then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.

Teleconference

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:

  • Therese Simcox

ARIN Staff:

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

Counsel

  • Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:00 p.m. EDT. She acknowledged the remote participation of AC members who were currently attending the RIPE 76 meeting in Marseille, France.

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 OD, and seconded by JS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of April 18, 2018, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

AP stated that the policy completed the last call period with no issues.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having successfully completed the Policy Development Process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-3: Update to NRPM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD asked if this policy includes the advice on implementation delay which was discussed at the last AC meeting. AP confirmed it did.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having successfully completed the Policy Development Process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the Definition of Community Network’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated there were no comments made during the last call period, nor any negative comments received since this version was posted.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

AD stated that the policy completed the last call period with no additional comments or negative feedback. He noted it is primarily a clean-up policy since we are now in the post-IPv4 exhaustion period.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having successfully completed the Policy Development Process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-10: Repeal of Immediate Need for IPv4 Address Space (NRPM Section 4.2.1.6)’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

CT stated that this policy completed the last call period with no issues.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having successfully completed the Policy Development Process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: Require New POC Validation Upon Reassignment’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. CT noted for the record that one comment was received during last call on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) where a concern was expressed regarding whether there can be an email in place in time - if the 10-day period is sufficient for validation.

The President stated that in prior meeting discussions, a suggestion for a consultation with regard to implementation was raised, as implementation will be a bit of an effort for staff. He was neither for or against it, but stated that no matter what is done, ARIN has to implement the process that is embedded in the policy as written. Staff will not be able to vary from this process. If an issue arises resulting from the process, a consultation can then be conducted, but, as the policy is currently written, ARIN will not hold a consultation because the policy text describes the process.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having successfully completed the Policy Development Process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-13: Remove ARIN Review Requirements for Large IPv4 Reassignments/Reallocations’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. JS stated there were no concerns raised during the last call period. There was one comment that was repetitive of previous comments. The comment supported the policy, but expressed the desire to have the effect of the recommended draft policy that is being removed remain ‘optional’. JS believed it would remain optional, and in lieu of suggested text, to that extent it would be a no-op.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

AW stated that there has been no new activity on the PPML. She stated that she would foster more communication closer to the AC’s June meeting, and speak with members of RIPE and APNIC for feedback while at the RIPE 76 meeting.

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

RS stated that there has been no discussion on the PPML because he and KR have not fostered any. They had not managed to craft language that was satisfactory. He stated the language has been improved, but he and KR were not that happy with it yet. RS stated that they will edit the text and send it to the PPML for discussion. They anticipate doing so within the next week.

DF asked to be included in the process, and RS agreed to include him.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2018-3: Remove Reallocation Requirements for Residential Market Assignments

JP stated that the text has been sent to the PPML, but there have been no responses, nor comments from any sidebar meetings. He stated that he would foster discussion on the PPML by next week if there is no activity by then.

12. Draft Policy ARIN-2018-4: Clarification on IPv6 Sub-Assignments

CW stated that there has been active discussion, as recent as yesterday, on the PPML. He noted that the text does not have support, but suggestions have been received on how to reword the text. CW stated that the author will resubmit edited text, listing more general use cases of space. Then it will be reposted to the PPML for feedback.

13. Proposed Editorial Update to the NRPM (formerly entitled ‘ARIN-Prop-251: Correct References to RWhois’)

OD stated that there were not many comments on the PPML. He believed the text was ready to proceed as an editorial update. The President clarified that a motion is needed to advance the editorial update to be sent to the Board for adoption.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances the Proposed Editorial Change to the Number
Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) formerly entitled ‘ARIN-Prop-251: Correct References to RWhois’, to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

14. ARIN-Prop-255: NRPM Cleanup

CT stated that he and JS, as the policy shepherds, agreed that this proposal is appropriate as an editorial change.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-255: NRPM Cleanup’ as an editorial change with a 30-day consultation period to begin on 21 May 2018, instead of 22 May 2018.”

The Chair called for discussion. CT stated that none of the changes would affect the policy and would be purely editorial in nature – hence why it was more appropriate as an editorial change than going through the Policy Development Process (PDP). He explained that he is requesting the consultation to begin on 21 May, one day earlier than the norm, so that the AC can have results prior to their June meeting. This was a suggestion by SH and CT thanked him for it.

The President stated that he believed staff has recently reviewed the editorial change and the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), and has some suggestions for clarity to the text. He understood the desire to get the proposal advanced as an editorial change and posted quickly. JSw noted that instances of ‘reassignment and reallocation’ were reported in the NRPM, but not for clarity.

The President stated that it was up to the AC whether to advance with the text they have, and address staff changes in a separate motion later, or wait for the staff changes and advance it at that time. Staff’s changes could not be added without further review by the community.

The Chair noted that this is not an emergency. The AC can move this proposal forward at their June meeting.

CT suggested moving this version now, and then again with the staff’s changes in June. CT asked for the motion to stand, and that he would bring any new changes forward in June.

OD stated he would like to follow Robert’s Rules of Order and moved to table the motion until the AC’s meeting in June. AM seconded the motion. CT was in agreement.

The Chair stated that staff’s changes need to be received and to re-post the text to the PPML. All agreed.

15. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

Update on Caribbean Call Quality

The Chair stated that the call testing had been completed and was successful. Everyone could hear the Caribbean AC members clearly. The Chair thanked SH for his efforts.

Bio Updates on AC Wiki

The Chair stated that those AC members who have recently changed employment needed to update their information on the AC’s Wiki.

Overdue Expense Reports

The Chair reminded the AC of the new travel policy terms that expense reports are 20 days after ARIN travel. She noted several not turned in from RIR and AC F2F meetings and reminded those members to do so.

The President stated that if expense reports are late, he has to consider why and that would be suboptimal. He urged the Council to not let their expense submission get beyond the 20 day deadline.

Kudos

The President thanked the AC for their work stating that the policies that were moved forward today were well-crafted. He stated that he was proud of the AC and the work you have been doing in discerning between policies that do not have a need or community support, and setting them aside early in the process, and bringing the technically-sound policies through successful completion via the PDP. He stated their work was extremely well run.

16. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:47 p.m. EDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by AP The meeting adjourned with no objections.

OUT OF DATE?

Here in the Vault, information is published in its final form and then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.