Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 July 2019

Teleconference

Attendees:

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

Scribe:

  • Therese Simcox

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela (MA), 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 M. Ryan, Esq.

Regrets

  • Alyssa Moore
  • Chris Woodfield

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged regrets from CW, noting that he is on a temporary leave of absence; and, she also acknowledged regrets from AM. The Chair acknowledged that KR would be delayed to the call.

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 CT, and seconded by RS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 20 June 2019, as written.”

The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Draft Policy ARIN-2018-6: Clarify Reassignment Requirements in 4.2.3.7.1

AW stated that the staff and legal review had been received. She noted that the review indicated that the policy text was clear and easily understood. AW believed that the draft policy could be moved forward at this time.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2018-6: Clarify Reassignment Requirements in 4.2.3.7.1’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements

KH stated that they received the Board’s recommendation, and they posted a note to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) for community feedback. KH stated that they have received positive feedback from the community; and, the policy has been well-received.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-3: Update 4.10 – IPv6 Deployment Block

AT stated that the staff and legal review had been received, and there were no issues indicated. She posted the text to the PPML, and was awaiting feedback. She stated that she intended to move this policy to recommended draft policy status at the AC’s next teleconference.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-Regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

RS stated that there has not been much discussion on this policy on the PPML, but noted that there has been more discussion on 2019-10. Some positive comments have been received on this policy, but most of the comments were negative rather than positive. RS stated that he will let the discussion continue for a while.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-5: Validation of Abuse-Mailbox

OD stated that he did not see any changes for this policy at this time. He noted that the comments on the PPML are generally negative. OD stated that he will let discussion continue, but that he intends to recommend that the policy be abandoned at the AC’s next meeting if comments continue to be negative. JP stated that he had reached out to the anti-abuse community, and that he will direct any comments received to OD.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-6: Longer Hold Time Requirements for 4.1.8 Recipients.

RS stated that the staff and legal review has been received. He pointed out that the interaction with the policy as of the July 10th edition of the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), is not what the author had in mind. RS stated that the author is happy however with the way things are now; and, RS noted that most of the community feedback indicated the same.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2019-6: Longer Hold Time Requirements for 4.1.8 Recipients’.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-8: Clarification of Section 4.10 for Multiple Discrete Networks

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2019-8: Clarification of Section 4.10 for Multiple Discrete Networks’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. Staff pointed out that a staff and legal review had not yet been conducted on this draft policy. OD stated that he thought a review had been done, but since it had not, he formally requested that a staff and legal review be conducted. In light of this, the motion was withdrawn.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-9: Clarify Interactions between NRPM 4.5 IPv6 Transition Space Requests and NRPM 4.1.8.2 Unmet Needs Requests

KH stated that a request has been made for a staff and legal review. She noted that there has been some positive discussion on the PPML. She stated that there are no changes for the policy at this time.

12. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M&A

KR was unavailable at this time to provide an update. (Discussed below)

13. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-11: M&A Regional Nexus Exclusion

RS stated that this policy had thin opposition, as there has been only one statement made against it on the PPML. He has reached out to the person who commented, and he also posted the rationale. RS noted that there has been almost no discussion on this policy on the PPML.

The Chair asked if RS thought that the lack of discussion was due to other similar policies that are on the AC’s docket. RS replied that he believed it was the wide-spread issue of lack of participation in the policy development process by the community. He suggested that, at some point, it would be beneficial to have a discussion on how to foster better participation.

OD believed that the community’s general apathy was relevant. He stated that he had read the policy statement and did not understand its goal. He believed that this may be the general view of the community, and that they were waiting for clarification on that point. RS asked OD if his statement was a request to engage with the author for clarity. OD stated that it would be appreciated, if possible. RS stated that he would reach out to the author.

JP stated that there had been positive responses to this policy, and since posting it earlier in the week, there have been further responses - both negative and positive. He believed that the discussion on the PPML needed to continue, and that the AC could discuss it at their next meeting.

AP stated that there was not much attention paid to this policy on the PPML, and it was the least controversial of the policies.

The Chair requested a that matrix of the policies be drafted for comparison to assist in the community’s understanding of these policies. The Chair asked the AC to think about how to present this to the community.

16. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-14: No Specified Transfers for 4.1.8.1 Blocks

AD stated that there were two comments on the PPML that stated this text should be incorporated into the NRPM, but the comments were not of the majority opinion. He stated he would try to foster further discussion next week, and possibly abandon this policy if there is no community support shown for adding language into the current NRPM, at the AC’s next meeting.

17. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-15: Hijacking Authorization Not-Intended.

CT stated that he had reached out to the author to simplify the statement as much as possible when the proposal was first received, but more work needed to be done now that the proposal had been accepted as a draft policy. He noted this has also been confirmed by postings on the PPML. He noted there was a suggestion to add one word to the text – which he and the policy co-shepherd are inclined to do. CT stated that, assuming no other feedback is received, it is their intention to make the suggested and related changes, and then request that a staff and legal review be conducted. No additional comments were provided.

KR joined the teleconference at this time (4:32 p.m. EDT).

KR explained that the Internet was having issues in Jamaica, and therefore she could not get connected. She stated that she could provide an update on item 12, Draft Policy 2019-10 at this time. The Chair agreed and asked her to do so.

12. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-10: Inter-RIR M&A

KR stated that she has been working with RS on this policy, and had posted the text to the PPML earlier this week. She noted that the discussion is on-going and is encouraging. She stated that she would sift through the feedback, monitoring the discussion until August 15, and pull comments together for the next meeting. KR stated that she would determine when to request the staff and legal review.

Staff reminded the AC that other than waiting until an AC meeting to vote on policy items, other items can be done between AC meetings such as requesting a staff and legal review, to which the Chair concurred.

18. ARIN-Prop-276: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool

AW stated that the spirit of this proposal is to take returned space and use it to assist in IPv6 deployment and eliminate the waitlist. AW stated that she has worked with the author and has updated the text on the AC’s Wiki. She believed the proposal meets all of the required criteria.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-276: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

19. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

Policy Shepherd’s Intentions E-mail

The Chair asked the AC if the e-mail that the Vice Chair sends to them a week prior to their meetings, which asks for their intentions on policies that are on their docket, was serving the purpose of generating discussion. This is done to help prepare for the AC’s upcoming meeting. The Chair believed this process was not as optimal as they would like it to be. She asked the AC to please think about this process, and to feel free to suggest if there is a better way to do so.

20. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:39 p.m. EDT. CT moved to adjourn, seconded by LS. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.