Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 16 April 2020

via 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)
  • Kat Hunter (KH)
  • Alyssa Moore (AM)
  • Anita Nikolich (AN)
  • Amy Potter (AP)
  • Joe Provo (JP)
  • Rob Seastrom (RS)
  • Chris Tacit (CT)
  • Alicia Trotman (AT)
  • Alison Wood (AW)
  • Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela, (MA) Deputy General Counsel
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Sean Hopkins, (SH) Policy Analyst
  • Richard Jimmerson, (COO) Chief Operating Officer
  • Lisa Leidel, (LL) Director - Registration Services
  • Therese Simcox, Scribe
  • John Sweeting, (CCO) Chief Customer Officer

ARIN General Counsel:

  • Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.

Regrets:

  • Kerrie Richards

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. She acknowledged regrets received.

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 RS, and seconded by JP, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 19 March 2020, as written.”

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

The motion carried with no objections.

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

KH stated that there was minimal discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), but feedback indicates that there is nothing against the policy. She stated that she is hoping to foster more conversation and noted that the staff and legal review is currently underway on the revised text. KH stated that she will post to the text to the PPML after the staff and legal review has been received.

RS stated that after the AC’s last meeting, the text was discussed and there was a lot of editing and wordsmithing performed on the text. The text has been posted to AC’s Wiki. RS requested that the Chair call for a staff and legal review again, so that the revised text can be posted to the PPML. The Chair agreed to do so.

SH noted for clarity that the text on the AC Wiki is not a published revision. He stated that the revision has to be published first, then the staff and legal can be performed. RS acknowledged and stated that he would publish the text.

JP stated that there has been no further discussion on the PPML. He stated the text is ready to be presented at next public policy forum.

The Chair stated that the next forum would be discussed under item 17, Any Other Business.

CW stated that he is waiting until next the PPM before moving the policy to last call.

OD stated that the text is ready to be presented at next PPM. He stated that he has hopes the community will support it.

9. Draft Policy ARIN 2020-1: Clarify Holding Period for Resources Received via 4.1.8 Waitlist

CT stated that there have been no changes since last month. There have only been a couple of comments received on the PPML, and a PPM is needed to decide on next steps. The Chair stated that there may not be as much feedback with an online format and to think of other ways to generate feedback.

10. ARIN-Edit-2020-1: Clarify Holding Restriction for Section 4.1.8 Waitlist Entries

AW stated that the staff and legal review was received and there were no issues from staff. She noted that the comment period ended on March 26, 2020. She stated that she would like to move to make this policy an official editorial change. This was seconded by OD.

The Chair called for comments. SH stated, as a point of order, that the policy had been moved as an editorial change by the AC on February 20, 2020. The next step is to advance it to the Board of Trustees for adoption.

AW modified the motion, and OD seconded:

“The ARIN AC advances “ARIN-Edit-2020-1: Clarify Holding Restriction for Section 4.1.8 Waitlist Entries” to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for any further comments. There were none.

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

11. Draft Policy ARIN 2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

AM stated that some comments had been received from the PPML. She noted that David Farmer asked if it was possible for this draft policy to be omitted from being added to the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) because it will eventually be removed. AM stated there had been no changes to the policy, and she will foster more discussion on the PPML.

12. Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3: IPv6 Nano Allocations

AD stated that this policy is generating good discussion on the PPML, and that feedback has shown positive support. He suggested two possible avenues to fix this issue: 1) Fix the policy; or, 2) A fix to the fee schedule. He noted it is an open question on how to deal with it and suggested engaging with the Board.

The Chair stated that fees are not in the AC’s purview, the AC only generates policy. AD asked if the AC can ask the Board appropriately about a fee change, rather than having a policy discussion that results in a policy change that is created only to fix a perceived fee issue.

The President asked AD to briefly summarize the fee issue as he sees it. AD replied that the problem is that a 3x-small organization receiving the current minimum sized IPv6 allocation will automatically become a 2x-small organization. He suggested to change the size requirements for 3x-small organizations so that an organization receiving the IPv6 minimum of a /36 remain in the 3x-small category. The President noted that the fee schedule is presently uniformly proportional to resources held, which supports equity and fairness. He asked AD if he was specifically suggesting expanding one of the bands. AD replied yes for continuity at the very bottom of the organization sizes defined. The President replied that he would bring the issue to the Board so that fee options can be discussed as an alternative to trying to address it in the NRPM. He noted that in general, number resource policy should be set based solely on technical merit, as fees are subject to change and you do not want to have to adjust the policy when the fee schedules change. Micro-level adjustment of policy to align with specific fee bands will force the AC to reevaluate the policy every time.

OD stated that he would much rather have the Board take care of it, but in the past it has gotten significant resistance. This is a reaction to the slow uptake of IPv6, and stringing the real world along. He believed that rather than modify the policy, have smaller organizations pay the lesser rather than the greater of their resource categories, or make getting a /36 IPv6 block at the lowest level not increase one’s fee. Either of these would be a valid solution, and still provide equity at the low end without nano-allocations.

The President responded clarifying that the problem described is about ISPs going from a recently introduced category with much lower fees, back to the previous lowest fee when they get IPv6. We created a new lowest category to handle very small ISPs.

RS stated that the Board did address a significant number of issues that affect people at the small end, approximately four years ago. They did not deal with everything on both ends however, and there is IPv4 philosophy in the IPv6 schedule. The fees are not revenue neutral in the IPv6 world. This policy proposal to add nano-level allocations seemed to be a way to address problem on the low end. RS stated that if the Board wanted to revisit it via fee changes instead, he would support it.

The CCO stated that ARIN’s Registration Services Department has to live this every day. In recent history there have been 30 3x-small organizations, and they were approved for allocations, but they did not want to pay more so they abandoned the approvals. To them, the policy which requires allocation of a /36 minimum IPv6 allocation is the problem. ARIN cannot give them a /40 if the policy does not allow giving them a /40 when they request it. ARIN cannot provide allocations that the policy does not dictate – it has to follow the policies in place.

The President reiterated that he would take the matter to the Board regarding having either a policy or fee options, but he was uncertain the Board will want to change the fee schedule. He noted that fee changes require their own separate path of community consultation.

AD stated that he would provide the President with a written explanation for bringing it to the Board. The President acknowledged and thanked him.

It was asked if there could be a scenario where the policy goes through the consultation process, to the Board, and the Board decides that a policy is not needed at that point. The President replied that he did not believe that there will be an assurance that it will be fixed in the fee schedule and, therefore, the AC should continue on course with the policy proposal if they considered it to be sound.

13. ARIN-Prop-287: Clarification of Reference to 8.2 in 8.3

The Chair stated that she missed this proposal and apologized to OD, policy author. She stated that policy shepherds would be assigned and that there is no further update at this time.

14. AC WG NRPM Clean Up Update

JP stated that CT and OD did a lot of work on the text. The WG is meeting on the 2nd Thursday of each month. He stated he will send a note to the AC with an update. They are working on: Section 4, updating the modernization proposal, and Section 6 internal consistency work. They are being cautious with their work. The Chair noted they are doing great work and JP for the update. She stated that an email summary of the details would be appreciated. JP agreed to provide it.

15. AC WG PDP Improvements Update

AP stated that they have a new outline of the PDP, and that it was sent to the AC on April 3rd. She asked the AC for their feedback. At the WG’s next meeting, they will proceed with the outline, which makes the PDP easier to use and the language easier to understand.

16. AC WG Policy Experience Report Update

CW stated that the WG is holding bi-weekly meetings. They are looking into the last 4 Policy Experience Reports (PER), and identifying items already addressed by adopted or in-process policy. They are in contact with the RSD Director and RSD staff on other things that have not been addressed to see if these items warrant new policy. He noted that the WG identified that Section 6.5.3.1 has a reference to review IPv6 transition allocations. He asked if that is being conducted as it is not clear. They may need to redefine terms in the clause to clarify this item. CW stated that in 2021, RSD will be providing PERs on a more regular basis - each quarter. He stated that he hoped to have proposals come out of this work. The Chair thanked CW for the update.

17. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

  • Nomination Committee (NomCom) Volunteers. The Chair stated that the NomCom is looking for volunteers and to please reach out to SH before 5 p.m. EDT on April 17th. She stated that it is a great process and that everyone should be part of it at some time.

  • ARIN Virtual Public Policy Consultation. At their meeting on 25 March, the ARIN Board requested that staff and the AC decide upon on a date in June to hold a virtual Public Policy Consultation (PPC). This was requested in light of the in-person ARIN 45 Public Policy Meeting (PPM) being cancelled. The AC has been asked to choose those policies most necessary to be discussed in an effort to engage community participation in the most efficient way possible with regard to everyone’s time, and to be able to gain consensus on critical policies.

The Chair explained that the June date was derived as a compromise so as to not be too soon for planning purposes and the community’s schedules. The tentative schedule is currently a work in progress and is minimal. All policies on the docket are on the schedule. The tentative proposed plan is to hold a PPC from 10 a.m. to 2:30 p.m. EDT. The Chair noted that the immediate response to this was ‘how we can do that with busy schedules?’ She stated that she has suggested to break the PPC into two, two-hour blocks from 12:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. over a period of two days.

The Chair posed these questions to the AC: 1) Would the AC rather have a one-day PPC and get it all done, or break the PPC over two days?; and, 2) Does the AC want to have all of the policies, that are on the docket, on the agenda or just the policies that need action? She noted that if the amount of policies discussed were pared down, the PPC will be shorter, and that the attendance to this PPC is variable and cannot be estimated.

JP replied that he preferred two days for time constraints and for consideration of the Caribbean and other time zones in the region. The Chair agreed and noted that this also allows for time for Q&A.

LS stated that the recent IETF virtual meeting had very short sessions, four hours a day, online tools, and it worked very well. He had participated along with Cathy Aronson and encouraged staff to reach out. LS believed that shorter meetings across a couple of days will help many folks. The Chair agreed.

OD concurred with the two-day plan for all reasons previously stated, and the issue of time zone alignment.

The Chair asked staff if two days was preferable over one day. The President asked about a few other presentations that are necessary. There may be a Policy Experience Report (PER) desired by the AC . It was asked of the President if it was necessary to have live presentations versus distributed ones. The President replied there is a requirement for an on-docket report as part of the consultation, if we are working on policies. He asked should they be done on one day or spread across the 2 days?

The Chair suggested that reports be spread across both days and be presented at the beginning of day. The President acknowledged that was fine. He asked about social activity and breaks – should they be in the middle of the timeframe? The Chair suggested every hour and a half. It was noted that staying on a video conference for an extended period of time is taxing on folks. The CCO suggested having only two hours each day, if spread it across two days. This would give everyone a chance to be awake and have it blend in with normal day to day activity. The Chair replied that a break between the two hours would be preferred. The CCO suggested one-hour presentations with a 30-minute break. The Chair agreed.

The Chair called for any further input the AC may have for staff. The CCO stated that staff will need input from the President and the Board Chair, but he believed that they have what they need from the AC. The Chair stated that the AC would appreciate a dry run prior to the actual PPC. The CCO agreed and stated that ARIN staff would also like to present all of the slides in case of technical issues. The Chair agreed.

The President stated that he is happy to support this effort. He noted that staff was willing and able to do an online meeting during the week of the April PPM, but moving it to June allows for discussion of the format and having a dry run. Staff will do whatever it takes to support the AC. The Chair thanked the President and staff for the support.

18. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:50 p.m. EDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by LS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.