Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 August 2019

Teleconference

Draft Minutes

These minutes are DRAFT. They have been reviewed by the ARIN Advisory Council prior to posting. These minutes will remain draft until they are reviewed and approved by the ARIN Advisory Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting.

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)
  • 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

Regrets

  • Chris Woodfield

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:01 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.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the Agenda with the Council and called for any comments. The Chair reminded the Council that there are two AC teleconferences remaining before the ARIN 44 Public Policy Meeting (PPM) in October, and she reviewed the deadlines for policy text revisions with them for their reference.

3. Approval of the Minutes

CT joined at this time (4:04 pm EDT.)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 18 July 2019, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

AM stated that there have been no changes to this policy and it is ready to be presented at ARIN 44.

AP stated that this policy is ready to be presented at ARIN 44.

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

AT stated that the staff and legal review has been conducted, and there have been no objections from the community.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2019-3: Update 4.10 – IPv6 Deployment Block’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

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

DF stated that there has been some discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) on this ‘subject’, however, there has been no discussion on this particular policy. He stated that he will post a question to the PPML to see if the community would like to abandon this policy.

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

OD stated that there has been minimal discussion on the PPML after rewriting the text to further explain the author’s intent. OD stated that mostly negative comments have been received.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2019-5: Validation of POCs Referenced as Abuse Contacts’.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

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

OD stated that the staff and legal review has been conducted, and that staff understands the policy as intended. He noted that there were no legal issues.

It was moved by OD, and seconded by AD, 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. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

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

AD stated that they were continuing discussion on the PPML, and that the staff and legal review has been posted to the PPML. The feedback is more negative than positive. He stated that discussion will continue for the next month, and then he will post a note to the PPML to let the community know that this policy will either be abandoned if there is no support shown, or ask the community to please provide additional feedback for edits if it is supported.

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

KR stated that feedback has been received from the PPML, and she has been reviewing the comments. She requested a staff and legal review at this time. KR stated she will weigh the staff and legal review once received, with feedback from the PPML. The Chair acknowledged her request for a staff and legal review to be conducted.

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

RS stated that there has been no action on this policy, nor is there an update at this time. He stated that he will try to foster further discussion on the PPML.

JP stated that there has been no change from the AC’s last meeting, where feedback received had been positive but with some negative comments that were not expanded upon. He requested a staff and legal review at this time so that clarifications could be made if needed, and then be posted to the PPML. The Chair acknowledged his request for a staff and legal review to be conducted.

AP stated that this policy may be abandoned due to the staff and legal review, as there is an inability to make this work in other regions. DF submitted a question to the President and stated that he had responded with whether it was sufficient enough, short of incorporation, for an entity to be registered as a foreign corporation.

The President explained that the challenge is that, from the legal comments, it is more than simply having a foreign registration. Foreign registration may address notice, but doesn’t address questions of enforceability. DF agreed, stating that was a good point and thanked the President for the comment. DF stated that he would feel more comfortable if the staff and legal review was posted to the PPML, along with the idea of abandonment so that the community can speak up if they believe this policy to be a good idea. DF stated that otherwise, he would support abandoning this policy.

AP stated that she will post the staff and legal review to the PPML, along with the suggestion DF proposed.

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

AD stated that in the last month, the PPML posts have indicated the intent to abandon this policy. He has not seen posts of support, and no one has made any further comments.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2019-14: No Specified Transfers for 4.1.8.2 Blocks’.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

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

CT stated that following the last AC meeting, and with receiving additional feedback from the PPML, the text has been revised. He noted supportive comments have been received that the policy text is much clearer. The staff and legal review has been conducted, and it did not indicate any issues.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2019-15: Hijacking Authorization Not-Intended’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

17. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool

AW stated that this policy would take addresses returned to ARIN, and put them into the 4.10 pool for IPv6 deployment. She noted that support is shown on the PPML for this policy, however comments indicate that the community would like to see addresses put into a 4.4 reserved pool for exchange points, and into the 4.10 reserved pool for other uses. AW stated that the text would need to be rewritten, and that she was unclear with regard to which addresses would go into the 4.4 pool, and which would go into the 4.10 pool. She welcomed any advice from the Council on this matter.

AD stated that there could simply be no distinction made, and an address can be reserved for either pool. AW agreed.

OD stated that it may be beneficial to post a note to the PPML to see if people recognize that this may be eliminating the possibility of waitlist fulfillment. It is currently unclear that people are not arguing against it. OD stated he would be posting this later to the PPML, and that he believed AD’s suggestion was a fine idea. He stated that he would not merge existing pools, but that a third pool seems reasonable, if done at all.

AW stated that one supporter did recognize the possibility of waitlist elimination, and that the supporter expressed concern about ‘grandfathering in’ the remaining addresses. She stated that she would clarify that to the community.

The Chair suggested to obtain from staff, the trends on how long the IPv4 pools would last with this policy in place. AW stated she would be happy to request it. The President affirmed that staff can provide that information; however, he did not believe the pools are draining fast, and they will take many, many years to drain. The Chair stated that the community most likely does not realize how long the pools will last. The Chair asked AW to send the request to her, and she will ask it of staff. AW thanked the Chair.

18. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

AC Teleconference/Face-to-Face Meeting Schedules

The Chair recognized the question of timing with regard to the AC’s face-to-face meeting on November 1 (in Austin, TX, post-ARIN 44) in relation to their regularly-scheduled teleconference on October 17th. Per the AC’s Standing Rules, the AC will hold the October teleconference, meet face-to-face November 1st, and not hold a November teleconference. The Chair called for comments.

OD stated that the AC’s Standing Rules, as written, would work well if the face-to-face was on October 31st , eliminating the October teleconference. He suggested that it may be worth looking at adapting the Rules for corner cases when the PPML falls late in October or April. The Chair agreed to looking at this for future cases.

The President stated that the AC could note this each year, and propose changes to the AC’s Standing Rules for the Board’s adoption - ideally prior to the Board’s January meeting. The President stated that, alternatively, it was also fine to propose changes after the January meeting, and the Board can review and adopt any changes at the Board’s next meeting.

JP pointed out that the AC will have this issue next April for ARIN 45 in Louisville, KY. The President re-iterated that the AC discuss and resolve their Standing Rules for the January’s 2020 timeframe.

JS stated that he looked at ARIN’s depletion rate of the special assignment IPv4 pools, and provided the following statistics:

  • 80% of 4.4 addresses are left
  • 97% of 4.10 addresses are left
  • 391 /24’s are left
  • 15,753 /24s are left
  • One to two 4.4’s are allocated per month
  • 4.10 pool has approximately 20 more years left

The Chair thanked him for the information.

19. Adjournment

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