Your IP address could not be determined at this time.

Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council

Thursday, 19 June 2014
Teleconference

Minutes

Advisory Council Attendees:

  • John Sweeting, Chair (JSw)
  • Dan Alexander, Vice Chair (DA)
  • Cathy Aronson (CA)
  • Kevin Blumberg (KB)
  • Bill Darte (BD)
  • Owen DeLong (OD)
  • Andrew Dul (AD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • Scott Leibrand (SL)
  • Tina Morris (TM)
  • Heather Schiller (HS)
  • Rob Seastrom (RS)
  • John Springer (JSp)

Minute Taker:

  • Therese Colosi

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
  • Einar Bohlin (EB), Sr. Policy Analyst
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Nate Davis, COO
  • Leslie Nobile, (LN) Dir., Registration Services

General Counsel

  • Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Absent

  • Milton Mueller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted. He acknowledged that MM was not in attendance.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda and called for comments.  There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

"The Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 15 May 2014, as written." 

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

The motion carried with no objections.

4. AC Vacancy

The Chair stated that Stacy Hughes had tendered her resignation, and it had been accepted. In accordance with the ARIN Bylaws, there was a procedure to follow when a vacancy arose. The Chair asked the AC if they believed a replacement would be needed at this time, or should the AC carry on through the rest of the year without filling the vacancy.

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council shall operate through the ARIN election in October, and to the end of 2014, without filling the vacancy."

As a point of order, DA asked if a motion was needed. The Chair stated he was in favor of having a motion on the table.

SL asked if the number of AC members needed to vote on actions of full the AC would still be eight members, given this vacancy. The Chair believed that was correct, and it also applied to final actions of the AC that would be forwarded to the ARIN Board.

Tina Morris joined at this time 4:07 p.m. EDT.

The President researched the Bylaws and clarified that the 'full AC' is the phrase used in the Bylaws. An open seat means the AC is running with a smaller body; however, there is no change from having 15 versus 14 members, because you have to round up. Most of the Policy Development Process (PDP) actions require the majority of the AC – and that would still end up being 8 AC members. The same applies to the action of sending a policy to the ARIN Board, which requires 2/3rds of the AC – 2/3rds of 14 would 9.66, i.e., rounded up it still requires 10 AC members voting in favor.

BD asked, hypothetically, what would happen if the AC lost another member, could the AC look again at filling the vacancy? The President stated that the AC could fill the vacancy later on and, if advance notice were provided via the agenda, then it would be a regular vote. Otherwise, if the subject simply came up during a call it would require a 2/3rds vote.

KB supported motion, but cautioned that bringing new AC members on board in a proper way was crucial - with a vacancy, the new member would be not have the benefit of the in-person meeting in January, or other introductory tasks that are associated with new AC members. This would put the new AC member, and the AC, at a significant disadvantage.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

5. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-7: NRPM 4 (IPv4) Policy Cleanup

It was moved by SL and seconded by JSp, that:

"The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN 33 Public Policy Meeting or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected during the Last Call period; and, noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, supports Recommended Draft Policy 'ARIN-2013-7: NRPM 4 (IPv4) Policy Cleanup' and recommends that the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it."

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that there was one comment during last call regarding the use of the word 'or', and that the AC shepherds had clarified the use of the word and did not hear back from the person. The Chair confirmed that the person was fine with the language, as he did hear from them.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

6. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8: Subsequent Allocations for New Multiple Discrete Networks

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council advances 'Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-8: Subsequent Allocations for New Multiple Discrete Networks' to Last Call."

The Chair called for discussion. CA stated it was ready to move forward.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use

BD stated there was no update at this time. The Chair stated he would reach out to MM to find out the status. DF stated he was working on new text and would send it in a few days, as he was working with MM.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-3: Remove 8.2 and 8.3 and 8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size Requirements

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council abandons 'Draft Policy ARIN-2014-3: Remove 8.2 and 8.3 and 8.4 Minimum IPv4 Block Size Requirements'."

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated that there had been minimal community support on the PPML, and little during ARIN 33, and it has since waned.

SL stated that there was some level of support for a change to minimum allocation sizes, short of removing the text, and that if the community wanted to submit a proposal in that vein, they should do so.

HS stated that during the recent ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC) in Bellevue, WA there was support shown for abandoning it, 22 to 1.

KB stated that the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) referenced a /28 in Section 4.10, and that there was already a scenario where /28's were allocated from ARIN. He was unsure as to how that may be different than Sections 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4.  Should it remain uniform or should it be removed from Section 4.10?

OD stated that Section 4.10 allows extremely small allocations for limited purposes. Policy proposals will likely change that, and he did not see Section 4.10 as any sort of justification for planning prefix size of general address space.

BD stated to SL's previous comment that he agreed that the AC ought to speak to the issue of some support, but he did not believe there was sufficient enough support that the AC needs to formally ask the community to draft another policy proposal to change minimum allocation size. If the community wanted to, that would be fine.

DF stated that he agreed with BD. He suggested that the AC might need to adjust the text in some places, but pointed out that the text was changed regarding Section 8.2 with regard to original block size and /28 transfers – that they would be allowed through the original block size factor.  The Chair stated that it was for staff to interpret.

The motion to abandon carried unanimously via roll call vote.

9. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-4: Remove 4.2.5 Web Hosting Policy

As a point of information, the ARIN Board of Trustees, at their meeting on 16 May 2014, ratified this policy.

10.  Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-5: Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council advances 'Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-5: Remove 7.2 Lame Delegations' to Last Call."

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove 7.1 (Maintaining IN-ADDRS)

RS stated that he would like to hear from AC members who were at the PPC in Bellevue as to how the changes to this draft policy were received. SL stated that he presented the text at the PPC, and that he perceived that people were fine with removing text, and the general sense of the community was that trying to put in an ARIN-controlled operational document was out of scope, and better done by the NANOG BCOP process.

DF stated there was a discussion regarding ARIN and the other RIRs drafting an informational RFC for the public.

The Chair asked SL to put this information in an email to the AC's list. SL agreed.

12. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-7: Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation Conservation Update

As a point of information, the ARIN Board of Trustees, at their meeting on 16 May 2014, ratified this policy.

13. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-8: Alignment of 8.3 Needs Requirements to Reality of Business

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council abandons 'Draft Policy ARIN-2014-8: Alignment of 8.3 Needs Requirements to Reality of Business'."

The Chair called for discussion. KB stated that he had reached out to the author, who was also in support of abandoning this draft policy. Since the policy was proposed, other policies have come forth, and have alleviated many of the author's concerns.  He believed it was not the right time for this policy. Changes will be more appropriate after IPv4 run-out, than at the present time.

The motion to abandon carried unanimously via roll call vote.

14. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-9: Resolve Conflict Between RSA and 8.2 Utilization Requirements

HS stated that she would like to move this Draft Policy to Recommended Draft Policy. The Chair clarified that it first needed another staff and legal review. He asked HS to please send the request to him, and it could be considered for Recommended Draft Policy status at the next scheduled AC meeting. HS agreed to do so.

HS stated that the text had been revised and presented at the PPC. There was no opposition shown at the PPC or on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML).  SL stated that, at the PPC, no one seemed excited about it, but he believed it should move forward.

AD stated that the new text still implied that the organization should be transferring addresses, not keeping addresses within their own holding. If the RSA says so, why shouldn't the policy? SL stated that the original rationale was that if one made a transfer and did not need all the addresses, the addresses should be allocated to someone who can use them. If someone drags their feet on transferring addresses, ARIN can say they are not compliant and cannot receive more addresses. RS suggested it be discussed further on the list.

The Chair reminded HS to request the staff and legal review, and urged all others to do so as soon as possible, if there were any similar requests.

15. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-10: Remove Sections 4.6 and 4.7

As a point of information, the ARIN Board of Trustees, at their meeting on 16 May 2014, ratified this policy.

16. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-11: Improved Registry Accuracy

It was moved by KB and seconded by BD, that:

"The ARIN Advisory Council abandons 'Draft Policy ARIN-2014-11: Improved Registry Accuracy'."

The Chair called for discussion. KB stated that after the last AC meeting, he tried to see if there were revisions within the NRPM to be made, and the PDP, but determined they were out of scope. He stated the text was changed as much as could be done, and the revisions would have added definitions and services. The community was adamant against services, as it would conflict with the Registration Service Agreement (RSA) from a contractual point of view. He further stated that during the PPC, John Curran had brought up that staff was working on potentially correcting several of the issues within the RSA to address concerns the author brought up, where possible. Based on all of these factors, KB believed it best to abandon this Draft Policy, and wait for the revised RSA to see if there is anything the author wanted to have go through the PDP.

The President agreed with KB's comments and stated that there was a lot of language in the RSA, that went back as far as a decade, that was based on the underlying assumption that most resources were issued by ARIN; and, the RSA did not always make clear how this apply to transferred resources. He stated it was a long process to correct, and that he and Counsel were working on the matter.

DF stated that when it's done to please share how it was done, as he found it interesting. The President agreed to share the process with the AC.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

17. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-Hijack Policy

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council advances "Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-Hijack Policy."

BD stated, as a point of order, that DF had not finished motion. The Chair thanked him and pointed out a friendly amendment:

"The ARIN Advisory Council advances "Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-Hijack Policy, with revised text, to Last Call."

The Chair asked if OD would agree to second this friendly amendment. OD seconded.

DF then stated an additional friendly amendment:

"The ARIN Advisory Council advances "Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12: Anti-Hijack Policy, with revised text, to an extended last call to July 15th." 

The Chair asked if OD would agree to second this friendly amendment. OD seconded.

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that the revised text had been discussed on the PPML. The policy had not been changed since the ARIN 33 Public Policy Meting that took place in April. He stated there had been last minute editorial changes to clarify the original intent. 

The President stated that this policy had since been modified from the version presented at the PPC. He cautioned the AC to make sure that they were collectively convinced that the changes were predominantly editorial in nature, and that an adequate explanation of the changes was sent to the community. DF pointed out that the AC had made sure that the community was comfortable with the changes, based on the different text that was presented at the PPC.  

The President stated that he was pointing out the fact that the community had expressed concern about this procedure if it was not done with a lot of forethought. The Chair agreed, and stated that that was why it was going through an extended last call, and the small changes would be announced to the community.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

18. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24

It was moved by KB and seconded by BD, that:

"The ARIN Advisory Council advances 'Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24' to Last Call."

The Chair called for discussion. KB stated that extended last call was recommended at the PPC. He stated there was unbelievable support for it at the PPC and support on the PPML. He noted staff concerns with regard to not being able to allocate addresses larger than a /24, and examples in multi-homing to limit maximum allocations given out that this text would have had removed. Examples were removed, and the community supported it because essentially one will have needs assessment, and dealing with slow start. The community believed it appropriate at this point - not to limit allocations to rigid maximums, but to show why you need larger amounts. This was discussed at PPC and people were fine with it.  On the PPML, with regard to removing the multi-homing  - it was redundant text, but they wanted it to remain for future use. Changes were made to clean up the text and show exactly those changes. No concerns were raised at the PPC – it had solid support.

Chair called for a friendly amendment:

 "The ARIN Advisory Council advances 'Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-13: Reduce All Minimum Allocation/Assignment Units to /24' to an extended last call to July 15th."

He asked if BD would second.  SL seconded, as BD was unavailable at this time (5:04 p.m. EDT).

The motion carried with 10 in favor and 1 against (HS) via roll call vote.

The Chair dropped from the call at this time (5:06 p.m. EDT) The Vice Chair resumed the meeting.  BD rejoined at this time (5:07 p.m. EDT).

19. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14: Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers

JSp stated there was no update or action at this time.

The Chair rejoined at this time (5:08 p.m. EDT), and resumed the meeting.

20. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-15: Allow Inter-RIR ASN Transfers

SL stated this draft policy was presented at the PPC, and that he would request a staff and legal review. The Chair noted a concern raised by Geoff Houston at the PPC. The Chair stated that he had followed up with Mark Kosters, and would like input from him. All agreed. SL stated Geoff's comments should be summarized.

KB asked SL to confirm if the intention was to not limit to 2 bytes? SL confirmed that there had been no community support for it.

The President stated that upon staff and legal review, he would discuss the matter with Mark and review Geoff's comments. He summarized that Geoff had remarked that each ASN transfer had the potential to create significant RPKI complexity similar to that which occurs when a /8 today ends up in use in multiple RIRs. This additional effort is manageable today - it may not be however, if there are hundreds of ASNs in blocks that are shared by 2 or more RIRs. It is possible that there could be a high level of maintenance effort, as a result, and we should make sure it shows up in the staff review.

OD was opposed to distinguishing between 16 and 32 bits.

BD stated that he would send updates from the Improve Communications Group to the AC list, but that he needed to leave the call at this time (5:15 pm EDT).

21. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-16: Section 4.10 Austerity Policy Update

DA stated that a number of comments were made at PPC with regard to people who have had issues with it. He stated there were fewer comments about the proposal's accomplishments, and more about the fact that it was replacing existing transition technology in Section 4.10. Based on conversations at PPC, it would likely require a rewrite and he believed it needed to be left the on docket for further work.

22. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from Last-Allocation to Total-Aggregate

AD stated that discussion was continuing on the PPML, upon which the outcome depends.

23. ARIN-Prop-210: (Title to be Determined)

RS stated he would be having a conference call with the originator tomorrow, and was working on the format.

24. Improve Communications Group (ICG)

ICG members: BD (Group Chair), JSp, CA, and C. Grundemann (Community member).

BD, as previously stated, would send updates to the AC list. The Chair stated that AD had sent a link to a software tool to the AC and staff is evaluating the use of it. There will be a conference call tomorrow to further discuss its use.

KB stated that, at the PPC, the AC presenters had a meeting prior to the PPC and it was successful and useful. They went through all of policy proposals and he would very much like to continue to do that at future meetings in advance of the PPCs.

SL cautioned that the meeting took away from NANOG sessions and to be careful of scheduling. HS stated she missed the open policy hour at ARIN Public Policy Meetings, as it worked very well. The Chair stated he would get the ICG to brainstorm these items on the AC's list.

ND confirmed that the conference call tomorrow was at 1:00 pm EDT, for AC members to discuss the tool that AD had suggested.

25. Any Other Business

Revised 2014 ARIN NomCom Process.

The President stated that the call for volunteers to sit on 2014 Nomination Committee (NomCom) would soon be open. It was a slightly different process for seating the NomCom. There would be two Board members and five members from the community on the committee, which can include up to two AC members. It would be done through a general call. He stated the AC should answer that call for expressing their interest in running for being on the NomCom. He reminded the AC that running for the NomCom is only for those AC members who do not plan on running for a seat on the AC.

Resignation of Advisory Council Member Stacy Hughes.

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council expresses their deepest appreciation and gratitude to Stacy Hughes for her years of dedication and contributions to ARIN, the Advisory Council, and the Internet community. Best wishes in her future endeavors. She will be missed."

The motion carried by acclamation.

26. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:28 p.m. EDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by JSp. The motion carried with no objections.