Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 01 November 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)
  • Alyssa Moore (AM)
  • Amy Potter (AP)
  • Joe Provo (JP)
  • Kerrie Richards (KR)
  • Rob Seastrom (RS)
  • Chris Tacit (CT)
  • Alicia Trotman (AT)
  • Alison Wood (AW)
  • Chris Woodfield (CW)

Scribe:

  • Sean Hopkins

ARIN Staff:

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

ARIN Board Observers

  • Dan Alexander, Trustee
  • Paul Andersen, Chair
  • Nancy Carter, Treasurer
  • Peter Harrison, Trustee
  • Bill Sandiford, Vice Chair

Regrets

  • Kat Hunter

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:42 p.m. CDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, and acknowledged regrets from KH.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the Agenda with the Council, and called for any comments. She noted that the Council would review any changes in employment prior to the approval of the Minutes, and that the Council would also review the procedure to fill DF’s seat, which will be vacated on 01 January 2020.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 17 October 2019, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

The Chair read the floor count from the ARIN 44 Public Policy Meeting (PPM). There were 126 in attendance, with 35 in favor and one against.

AM stated that, based upon the feedback from the discussion, the general consensus is that the community would like the word “valid” removed from the text. She asked if the Council should move the Recommended Draft Policy to Last Call with that change. CW noted that the Council had moved items to Last Call with a change in the past.

The Chair asked when the Board of Trustees would be meeting next. Paul Andersen replied that the Board would be meeting later this month, and that they had agreed that more routine proposals, where there was minimal staff or legal impact, may be approved between Board meetings.

It was the sense of the AC that this policy would be revised with a motion to move it to last call possibly occurring at their next teleconference in December.

The Chair read the floor count from the ARIN 44 PPM. There were 114 in attendance, with 17 in favor and one against.

AP stated that she had received feedback at the microphones with regard to clarifying the language to allow merger and acquisition transfers for organizations with multiple organization identifiers (Org IDs). She stated that she would like to edit the language based on that feedback and recirculate it to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). She also stated that she would be incorporating a change to update the reference to Section 4.1.6. AD asked for clarification on the reference to Section 4.1.6.

CW stated that his reading of the original policy language led him to believe the reference to 4.1.6 was intended to say that one should not make multiple waiting list requests because it will disaggregate one’s blocks. CW further stated that he believes it is no longer relevant. He would advocate removing the whole phrase, and suggested stating that “repeated requests are not allowed”.

AT stated that a new proposal, ARIN-Prop-280, had been submitted to resolve that particular reference, and asked what would become of the proposal. JP stated that he was the author of that proposal, and he imagined the Council would abandon it.

OD stated that he agreed with CW with regard to the intent of the original language of Section 4.1.6.

CW clarified his previous suggestion stating that the word “repeated” may be ambiguous or confusing, and suggested that the language say “multiple requests are not allowed” or similar language.

AP replied that she would consider CW’s suggestion, as well as the other comments provided by CT, when editing the language.

The Chair read the floor count from the ARIN 44 PPM. There were 122 in attendance, with 29 in favor and one against.

AT stated that there was positive feedback at the microphone, and that one comment related to examples in the policy’s problem statement, but that there were no issues with the policy’s problem statement.

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, via roll call vote.

The Chair read the floor count from the ARIN 44 PPM. There were 102 in attendance with 32 in favor and none against.

OD stated that he felt this item was noncontroversial and supported at the microphones.

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, via roll call vote.

AD noted that while no substantive conflicts existed, ARIN-2019-3 contained language that may result in a basic merge conflict with text in ARIN-2019-8. SH replied that staff implementation can always be guided by the Council should any such merge conflicts exist.

The Chair read the floor count from the ARIN 44 PPM. There were 107 in attendance with 4 in favor and 11 against.

KR stated that there were many of comments on the PPML. She compared them and realized that there was support only if changes were made to remove ambiguity. She stated that there is value in changing the language based on that feedback, and reposting it to the PPML. KR stated would revise the text and repost it noting that there was no rush.

AD asked if folks think this is a problem that needed to be solved because if not, the policy could be abandoned. AP replied that some folks may not be clear on where and when that situation happens. KR stated that by revising the policy, she wants to hear from those people in order to look for examples and weigh the feedback before considering abandonment. CW stated that he did not like to see ambiguity as the current practice, and preferred to make things more explicit.

JP stated that this item did not receive much discussion, and that the language was updated prior to the last staff and legal review. He further stated that he intends to update the conversation thread on the PPML; and, he may later make a motion to advance this policy as a recommended draft policy at the AC’s next teleconference in December.

The Chair read the floor count from the ARIN 44 PPM. There were 81 in attendance with none in favor and 19 against.

AP stated that the community made it clear that they do not need this problem to be solved.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2019-13: ARIN Membership Legal Jurisdiction Exclusion’.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, via roll call vote.

The Chair read the floor count from the ARIN 44 PPM. There were 111 in attendance, with 19 in favor and two against.

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, via roll call vote.

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

The Chair read the floor count from the ARIN 44 PPM. There were 110 in attendance, with three in favor and 19 against.

AW stated that the community had many passionate responses to this item, including some confusion on the ‘spirit’ of the policy statement. She further stated that if this policy moves forward, she would need to make major edits, such as clarifying the term “pool”, and including all IPv4 pools as recipients of the space in question.

OD stated that he would strongly support abandoning this policy, as he felt the community made it clear that they did not want the change, even among those who did understand the intent.

CW stated that there should be a valid conversation of whether the IPv4 waiting list is serving its purpose. He noted that he was on the fence over whether or not that should be a larger conversation outside of the Policy Development Process (PDP). He further stated that he cannot support the policy itself.

The Chair stated that she also cannot support the policy statement as written.

AM stated that this item was born of older waitlist discussions, and was written and submitted to generate discussion within the community. She believed that while there is confusion, the discussion generated has value.

AW stated that there had been lunch table discussions regarding the waiting list, and the consensus at those discussions was that community members do not want it eliminated.

CW asked if the space that was reclaimed, earlier in 2019 as a result of arbitration, had been redistributed. JS stated that the space was currently quarantined, pending Board and executive decisions in 2020 about where it should go. Paul Andersen stated that it was unclear what would occur to blocks recovered from that specific case, and there may be further Board consideration.

JS stated that if the entirety ends up in the reserved pools, it would represent many decades of usable space for those pools at current rates. The COO stated that regardless of reclamation path, ARIN holds space in quarantine for over one year before it is reviewed and given new purpose.

AP stated that she believed this policy may eliminate competition and enhance activity in the transfer market, in a manner that would not serve the ARIN community.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2019-17: Returned Addresses to the 4.10 Reserved Pool’.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, via roll call vote.

13. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks

RS pointed out that the community has stated that the AC should work on this issue. He stated that feedback has indicates that clearly there are problems that exist in this space, and it appears striking Section 8.5.2 completely is a non-starter. RS further stated that he will be updating the text based on that feedback, and would like further input from the AC.

JP believed that if the problem space is narrowed down, and the Local Internet Registry (LIR) portion of the text is clarified, the problem was still worth exploring.

JS Stated that, if implemented, ARIN-2019-18 would only adjust ARIN’s vetting process by removing the requirement that a SWIP submitter and recipient have a valid connection. RS noted that most questions raised about implementation were generally rhetorical, and that this is more of a vision question to ensure everyone is talking about the same thing.

OD stated that there is no real issue with leasing necessarily, but he did believe that providing leased space as a justification for a transfer could be troublesome. He suggested that the text be narrowed down to say that monetizing via leasing is acceptable, but that he would not want to encourage brokers to get involved in the world of leasing.

CW agreed with OD, asking if the policy could be corrected to affect that change without creating IP “landlords.” He further stated that disallowing leased space as a transfer justification would be good change.

AM stated that for the original allocation, the company has to have their own network. As a subset of their business, they might also lease address space. The question is how can that be built into the policy?

The Chair stated that the discussion is valuable, but the policy change would effectively remove needs-based justification for address space, of which the community is not in favor. She further stated that for organizations that operate an ISP and also lease space, this policy would not have too large an impact. The Chair further stated that while fees are not within the scope of the PDP, it is notable that this policy change would force more companies to become ISPs and pay higher fees as a result.

JP wondered if this policy change would essentially ‘walk back’ the collective decision to employ a ‘hard landing’ with respect to IPv4 depletion.

OD stated that he did not believe that the policy change would eliminate needs-based justification, and that allowing organizations to split their space on a temporary basis would not be much of a difference from the status quo.

AW stated that while smaller organizations should be able to lease space, they can be in categories where ARIN has little jurisdiction.

AP stated that the policy could require that the allocation recipient lease space that is only within their justification for the original allocation.

JS noted that the recipient does not have an allocation from ARIN in this case, but rather a pre-approval for a transfer on the transfer market.

AP asked how ARIN would ensure that an organization is leasing space properly if there is no connectivity provided. JS stated that the organization would be able to obtain a /24, and more with justification. From there, there are no incentives, currently, for that organization to properly manage the space. An added incentive of some kind would be needed.

The Chair noted that organizations are already leasing space, and that this policy, as written, could create a business model that could be abused. RS concurred, adding that he has experienced similar abuse of that type of business model. He stated that he does recommend against leasing, but sometimes an organization must either lease or buy space at an exorbitant cost. He asked if there is a way to handle transfers of IP addresses that would prevent such abuse. The Chair believed that because the space is not considered an asset, effectively facilitating any transfers in that way would be difficult.

AM stated that the idea of “landlords” and “renters” had raised some stories of abuse cases. She asked if this policy were to legitimize leasing and allow brokers to become LIRs, would this be beneficial in terms of transparency?

AP noted that she had concerns relating to this, as she has dealt with similar issues. She noted that the policy might allow other entities to obtain IP addresses where they may not have before, which is likely to increase market prices and further complicate issues for ISPs who are already struggling to obtain and keep space.

CT stated that the problem of leasing is one that the AC should address. He suggested that the policy shepherds revise the problem statement to focus on ARIN’s ability to administer numbering resources fairly and impartially, and to improve database accuracy.

JP noted that there is no real incentive for organizations to begin leasing legitimately, and he believes the policy will legitimize a business opportunity for brokers.

The Chair called for a recess at 2:54 p.m. CT. The Chair resumed the meeting at 3:08 p.m. CT.

14. ARIN-Prop-278: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers

AD stated that he had reviewed the proposal text; and, he believed it to be in scope, with a clear problem statement.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-278: Require IPv6 Before Receiving Section 8 IPv4 Transfers’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, via roll call vote.

15. ARIN-prop-279: Harmonization of Maximum Allocation Requirements under Sections 4.1.8 (ARIN Waitlist) and 4.2.2 (Initial Allocation to ISPs)

The Chair noted that shepherds will be assigned to this Proposal shortly.

16. ARIN-prop-280: Correct ‘Repeated Requests’ Reference

JP stated that he intended to withdraw this proposal, as author, via email.

17. Any Other Business

Abandoned Policy Statements

The Chair reminded the Council that shepherds of abandoned draft policies should submit abandonment statements to staff.

AC Member Resignation

The Chair stated that David Farmer had tendered his resignation to be effective January 01, 2020, via email. The Chair noted that once the Advisory Council election results are public, the AC will make a motion to appoint an AC member to fill the vacant seat effective 01 January, 2020.

The President noted that the Council may make that motion during any meeting.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, in accordance with their Standing Rules, will appoint a 15th member, immediately following David Farmer’s resignation.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

18. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 3:31 p.m. CDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by AM. The meeting adjourned with no objections.