Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 21 February 2019 [Archived]

Teleconference

Attendees:

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

Scribe:

• Therese Simcox

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela, Associate General Counsel
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Sean Hopkins (SH), Policy Analyst
• Richard Jimmerson (RJ), COO
• John Sweeting, (JS) Sr. Director, Registration Services

ARIN General Counsel

• Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Regrets

• Joe Provo

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. EST. The presence of a quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council. The Chair acknowledged and agreed to RS’s request to discuss Section 4.1.8 of Draft Policy 2010-1 after item 3, instead of under Any Other Business, as RS had a conflict and needed to leave the call early.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 25 January 2019, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

The Chair stated that 4.1.8 would be discussed at this time.

Discussion of Section 4.1.8 of Draft Policy 2010-1 Waiting List for Unmet IPv4 Requests.

RS stated that he was hoping to have a more in-depth discussion today with the AC on this matter, but he had not received much feedback on the draft he posted to the AC Wiki. He stated that other proposals exist that may be merged into the existing work being done on this policy, or that this work may be merged into proposals currently underway. He stated that they are trying to determine what to do with section 4.1.8 space and the waiting list. RS suggested that in order to be constructive when presenting this to the community, the AC should enumerate the pros and cons of what they have considered, and the reasons for any discarded options, via a slide deck detailing the points. He acknowledged that he had received feedback from AD and OD, and he thanked them. RS encouraged all of the AC members to review what has been done thus far. He asked for their thoughts and feedback on the different points.

OD agreed with the idea of a slide deck, but stated that he would like to see it published to Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) in March if possible, or as soon as possible, to identify a trend among the community. RS summarized OD’s comment to post to the PPML, options considered and discarded, at the beginning of March at the latest. OD concurred. RS agreed with OD’s suggestion.

CW stated that, in looking through the considered discarded items, option E could be worth presenting to the community. He stated that the reason for the abuse of this policy is because it is profitable. Option E is a way to remove that motive, therefore CW did not believe option E should be discarded at this point in time. RS asked CW to enter that into the form on the AC Wiki. CW agreed to do so.

RS left the call at this time (4:15 p.m. EST) thanking the Chair and AC for accommodating his schedule.

The Chair resumed the agenda in order.

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

CT reminded the Council that DF had made substantial changes to this policy for easier implementation. After the AC’s January meeting, further minor revisions were made and the text was posted to the PPML. CT and DF were confident that the policy is ready to be moved forward. Noting that the text is radically different than initially provided, CT made the following motion.

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

“The ARIN AC acknowledges that the substantial changes to ARIN-2017-12 void the previous assessment that supported Recommendation Draft Policy status, and therefore changes ARIN-2017-12 to Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no further comments.

The motion carried with 13 in favor, via roll call vote.

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

KR stated that she had made updates to the policy text, and that staff is reviewing it for clarity. She posted this information to the PPML, and did not receive any comments. KR stated that she expects once the revised language is posted to the PPML, feedback will be forthcoming.

6. ARIN-2018-5: Disallow Third-Party Organization Record Creation

AD stated that an update was published to the PPML containing pared down text, and it was received with positive reviews. He stated that the next step is to request that a staff and legal assessment be conducted, and that he hoped to move the policy forward at the AC’s March meeting.

7. ARIN-2018-6: Clarify Reassignment Requirements in 4.2.3.7.1

AM stated that there was a good deal of conversation on the PPML. She noted that there was some confusion, at first, around the intent of the proposal with regard to whether or not to get rid of a large section of the template. She explained that this is not the intent. The intent is to make it clear that a simple reassignment is required, not a more detailed one. She noted that some saw it as a way be able to scam more easily; and, that three to four community members supported the text, recognizing that smaller blocks are tied to small companies. AM noted that LS presented the policy at NANOG 75 this week.

CW noted that the template only requires a company’s name, and suggested also adding the address for geolocation. Lack of an address in WHOIS could make the information less accurate.

8. ARIN-Prop-259: Remove IPv4 Reference in NRPM Section 6.10.1

AM stated that she will reach out to the proposal author this week (AD), and post text later this week for the AC’s review.

9. ARIN-Prop-260: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements

KH stated that she has spoken with the author (CW), and they believe the text to be clear and within scope. She stated she would like to move it forward for community input.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-260: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. CW stated that, as the author, he is aware that this proposal may be rendered mute around the waiting list policy. He expects the wait list policy work will take a while to iron out, and stated that this proposal maybe worth pursuing as a small interim qualification. He stated he was open to any of the AC’s comments.

The motion carried with 13 in favor, via roll call vote.

10. ARIN-Prop-261: Waiting List Block Size Restriction

AW stated that this proposal was received from the author with regard to Section 4.1.8 qualification that if no blocks are available, then an option be provided to be placed on a waiting list of pre-qualified recipients, listing both the block size qualified for, or a /22, whichever is smaller; and, the smallest block size acceptable not to exceed a /22. This would remove financial incentives to abuse the IPv4 free pool. AW noted that while other RIRs do not have waiting lists, they do have emergency pools from which to assign space, and this would align ARIN what the other RIRs are doing. AW stated that the proposal was within scope, and had a clear problem statement.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-261: Waiting List Block Size Restriction’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no further comments.

The motion carried with 13 in favor, via roll call vote.

11. ARIN-Prop-262: Update 4.10 – IPv6 Deployment Block

AT stated that she has spoken with the author (AD), and she believes this proposal to have a clear problem statement and that it is within scope. She noted that AD is suggesting to change minimum and maximum size allocation to a /24; and, previous allocations must be utilized to at least 80% to receive more allocations or assignments. AT stated that she believes the proposal was ready to move to draft policy status.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-262: Update 4.10 – IPv6 Deployment Block’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no further comments.

The motion carried with 13 in favor, via roll call vote.

12. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

ARIN AC Slack Channel

The Chair stated that, per the AC’s request, an ARIN Slack chat channel has been created for the AC and ARIN staff to use to discuss various AC matters. She noted that is an experimental way of communication, as it would be helpful to have one place to communicate. The Chair noted that all AC members had signed on to the channel.

AC 2020 January Face-to-Face Meeting Location

The Chair suggested moving the date from the 4th Friday of January, as is written in the AC’s Standing Rules, to an earlier date in January, with the permission of the Board. This was suggested due to the AC’s desire to hold the meeting in Miami, however, the date conflicts with the Superbowl in Ft. Lauderdale, and hotels in the surrounding area are sold out. The Chair asked the AC to consider moving the location of their meeting, or choosing a different date to hold the meeting in Miami. The Chair stated she would circulate a note to the AC’s list for feedback.

Presentation at NANOG 75

The Chair stated that LS provided a presentation yesterday NANOG 75 on the operational impact of the policies. She stated that a link will be circulated to the AC to view this presentation, and that another presentation will be given at NANOG 76 in June. This will benefit the AC by providing feedback from the community. The Chair expressed that she thought it went very well.

Policy Development Process Timelines

SH stated that there will be a freeze to editing any text on recommended draft policies on Thursday, March 7. He noted that there are a number of policies that may or may not make the deadline. SH asked the Council to please be mindful of when revisions are made, so that the community can be well informed of the latest policy text.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:43 p.m. EST. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by CW. The meeting adjourned with no objections.