ARIN 50 Public Policy and Members Meeting, Day 2 Transcript - Friday, 21 October 2022
Hollis Kara: So welcome, everybody, to day two of ARIN 50, here in Hollywood. We’re happy to have you here. I’m looking to see if she stepped into the room. I don’t see, does anybody have eyes on Melissa? I literally can’t see anything back there.
I need everybody’s help with something really quick. So bear with me. We’ll get started. I need Melissa. Melissa, okay, pause. All right, folks.
So coming back and doing hybrid meetings has been like a steep learning curve for everybody. It’s been a steep learning curve for the industry as well, trying to bring properties back up to speed. All the hospitality industry has taken a hit.
Now, I feel like, from the feedback I’ve gotten, I think everybody here on site has been having a tremendous time. Everyone enjoy the social last night that attended?
What you don’t know is just like ducks look calm, sitting on top of the water, pretty much everything below the surface that could go weird did go weird, so I’d really appreciate it if everybody could stand up and give Melissa Goodwin a round of applause for a wonderful meeting.
I’m done embarrassing you. I don’t think anybody who isn’t in the event industry understands how much work goes into pulling these things off. And Melissa is a champ. And I appreciate you guys helping me convey to her how much we appreciate her.
Moving on to the real business of the day. I’d like to, once again, thank all of our elected volunteers for being here and participating, as well as our candidates for demonstrating their willingness to jump into the fray. If you are a voting representative, please do remember to vote this week.
Just a couple of quick reminders, refresh as we start, for the rules of engagement for the day. For those who are joining us online, you have chat available for informal conversation, and then raising your hand or using Q&A to be read into the discussion portions of the meeting. So that’s cool.
If you need assistance, our virtual help desk is open. You can find that in the menu of the meeting page. And we’ve got somebody there until 9:30 this morning to assist you. And they’ll be back again at break as well or at lunch.
All right. For our in-person participants, you are welcome to log in to the Zoom. Just please, please make sure that you are muted and disconnected from audio if you choose to do so. If you want to talk to our remote participants, that’s a good way to do that.
And everything you need is on the navigation of the ARIN 50 website. So if it’s not there, let me know because I’m pretty sure everything and the kitchen sink is there as well.
Okay. Some reminders for our discussion. We’ve got a lot of policy to discuss this morning. So it’s real important that we remember how we’re going to manage the discussion periods.
I will be coordinating with my production team on the back riser to pull in speakers from the virtual participants. Folks in the room will queue at the microphones.
Please make sure now as I’m starting to say it I’m trying to do it myself, to slow down and to also state your name and affiliation at the beginning for the benefit of the transcriptionist. And also to remember to please adhere to our standards of behavior.
Slides are going to be available online. In fact, I think most of them are already available on the meeting materials page. We are also recording this session and it will be published with our full meeting report in about ten business days after the close of the meeting; 10, 14, something like that. In the next couple of weeks.
I’d like to, once again, thank our sponsors, if I can get a round of applause for Zayo, Google, and IPv4.Global Hilco Streambank.
Thank you very much for all your support of the ARIN community.
And a quick overview of the agenda.
As soon as I stop talking, we’re going to launch into our first policy block of the day. We’ve got four policies which will be followed by a break. After the break we will do our second policy block. And then we’ll go to lunch.
After lunch, we will have a series of reports, our Financial Report, everybody’s favorite, the Advisory Council report, the Board of Trustees Report, and then conclude the day with an Open Microphone.
If we do run early with any of the policy blocks we may pull some other presentations forward to keep the flow of the day going, in which case the meeting may wrap a little bit earlier. We’ll see how it goes. Don’t let that dissuade you from coming to the microphones.
All right. And with that, we’re going to open our first policy block of the day. And I’d like to welcome Kerrie Richards to the stage to present on ARIN Draft Policy 2022-2: Remove Barrier to BGP Uptake in ASN Policy. Come on up, Kerrie.
Policy Block II
Draft Policy ARIN-2022-2: Remove Barrier to BGP Uptake in ASN Policy
Kerrie Richards: Where is the clicker?
Hollis Kara: Green.
Kerrie Richards: Lovely big green button. Can’t get that wrong. Good morning, everyone.
This morning I’m presenting to you ARIN Draft Policy ARIN 2022-2, entitled Remove Barrier to BGP Uptake in ASN Policy.
And my co-shepherd is Chris Tacit, and we’ve been able to work together quite well to work through this policy.
So at this point I’d love to thank staff, the Staff and Legal team, for taking not one but two looks at this policy. So thank you very much for your input.
The second set of input is what you’re seeing here. But when we presented it to them initially, that was the input that made us realize that we needed to go back and make a few tweaks because the intent or how it was interpreted, we realized that there was a challenge there.
So based on that, we were able to go back through, make some changes, and based on those changes this is the updated Staff and Legal.
And we have the staff understanding here. So it would rewrite ARIN’s Autonomous System Numbers policy reducing its overall size and specifying single ASN issuance as a default action.
They say the text is now clear and understandable. I’m happy for that. And all of the other bits are there as well so the implementation is it implementable as written? Yes.
Impact on ARIN Registry Operations and Services. None with some further text there. No material legal issue. And implementation timeframe estimated at about three months, with some staff training updates to public documentation and internal procedures and guidelines required over that period of time as well.
So here is the updated text, the problem statement. And we worked with the author based on that previous Staff and Legal to be able to come up with this more refined version of the problem statement.
Current requirements to getting an ASN have resulted in confusion of that text is there. ARIN does not provide guidance to use RFC1918 space. If possible and likewise ARIN should not require the use of private ASNs in preference to public ASNs.
Quite a lot of text there. That’s two of three. The further technical rationale, I invite you to take a look at that on the meeting materials and all of that.
We thought it was good to include that to ensure that further understanding of the technical rationale was there, simply because we had that misinterpretation before. And the problem statement continues there.
Okay. So the policy statement, we’re proposing that we replace the entirety of Section 5, which currently reads as we have it there, with so, yes, it’s quite a lot of words, quite wordy.
And we haven’t been getting a lot of feedback on it but it’s here. So in order to be assigned an ASN each requesting organization must provide ARIN with verification that it requires a unique routing policy, such as a plan, and to originate announcement of IP numbers to multihome, all of those things. So those are the things that would fall under that plan.
And we would then replace it with this text. So any organization may be issued a single ASN upon request. Organizations that have space issued under Multi Discrete Networks policy may be issued one ASN per discrete network upon request. And that’s that there.
So at this time we have two questions Chris and I have two questions for you. Do you support the policy as it’s written? And I’m happy that we’re at this new we’ve worked together to get to this new state of it. And are there any suggestions or recommendations? And we welcome any suggestions and recommendations.
And thank you for the recommendation that came through the last time, that also we took that into consideration as well. So do you support the policy as written and are there any suggestions and recommendations?
Hollis Kara: All right. That means the microphones are open. So please approach the mics on the floor or start typing if you are coming in on virtual.
Bill Sandiford: Rear microphone. It’s not live.
Kevin Blumberg: Kevin Blumberg, The Wire. If you could go back to the new policy text, please. One more, please. Thank you.
Can you confirm we have to originate announcement of IP addresses via accepted protocol from an ASN different than its upstream to multihome a site or to use an ASN to ARIN to connect with other autonomous systems?
Wouldn’t “to use an ASN to interconnect with other autonomous systems” effectively mean that those other items aren’t required at all? Is there any scenario where interconnection with those other ones wouldn’t require interconnection?
Bill Sandiford: That is current text. The first line.
Kevin Blumberg: Sorry?
Robert Seastrom: Next slide is the new text.
Kevin Blumberg: Okay. No.
Robert Seastrom: There’s the proposal.
Bill Sandiford: It says current text.
Robert Seastrom: Wait, wait, wait.
Bill Sandiford: Second to last one. Current text.
Kerrie Richards: One more.
Kevin Blumberg: Thank you, that’s where the confusion was. Thank you. I support this policy as written. Well done on cleaning up all the garbage in it.
Bill Sandiford: Rear microphone.
Lee Howard: Lee Howard, IPv4.Global by Hilco Streambank. I may get in trouble for this, especially because I haven’t had enough coffee yet. It is possible to do transfers of ASNs. I believe there’s a hold down period, and then they can be transferred.
Therefore, they have value. We’re essentially doing away with a needs-based policy here, that, at risk of my job, concerns me.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you, Lee.
Checking online, anything coming online?
Hollis Kara: Nothing coming in online.
Bill Sandiford: Reminder to online participants, we welcome your feedback.
Rear microphone, R.S.
Robert Seastrom: Rob Seastrom, ARIN AC, Capital One, ClueTrust and Policy Author. And I would like to offer a counterpoint to what Lee just wrote, which is for anything more than one ASN per Org there’s still a needs-based test.
This may come as a surprise to people in the room, but BGP is not useful just for multihoming or connecting to an exchange. It’s useful for slinging around your connection in the event of an emergency to something new that you got really quickly.
We’re in an earthquake-prone zone here. There are AC members and Board members with ties to the Caribbean, certainly plenty of members and people in the community. And they have hurricanes and they also have seismic activity.
And I’d like to point out that our previous requiring (indiscernible) meeting, basically be on the cusp of multihoming to Git. BGP does not set up these organizations for having a plan B ready in their hip pocket in case things go sideways. Satellite’s too expensive to run every day. Thank you.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you. All right, closing the microphones shortly. Checking one last time online.
Hollis Kara: Nothing online.
Bill Sandiford: All right.
Robert Seastrom: And in case it wasn’t obvious, I support it as written.
Hollis Kara: Wait. We just had one pop through.
Bill Sandiford: All right. Let’s go to the online.
Hollis Kara: We have Celeste Anderson. I don’t have an affiliation with that. Sorry. And she said that she supports the Draft Policy as written.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you, Celeste. Please remember to give your affiliation when commenting online.
All right. Seeing no one else at the microphone, confirming nobody else online, we’ll close this one up.
Thank you everybody for your comments. The AC will take it under consideration.
Hollis Kara: Thank you.
All right. Click through. Got through that part.
Beverly Hicks: Hollis, I’m sorry. Celeste Anderson is from Pacific Wave.
Hollis Kara: Thank you. That aside, next up we’ve got Matthew Wilder to present on 2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5.
Draft Policy ARIN-2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation Requirement for 8.5.5
Matthew Wilder: Thanks, Hollis.
All right, have another sip of that coffee, folks. ARIN 2022-3: Remove Officer Attestation from 8.5.5. This one had originated from the Policy Experience Report Working Group.
So taking feedback from the ARIN staff as well as customers who said that in many cases officer attestation presents somewhat of a barrier; it’s hard to get executives to sign off, especially once legal reviews it to see how much is in there and what they’re attesting to. That’s sort of where this came from.
I was assigned shepherd along with Joe Provo. And here we are.
The latest Staff and Legal Review says that this would remove the officer attestation requirement for organizations qualifying for transfers larger than a /24 and additional transfers. And this became part of the NRPM in February of 2017 and is not currently an IP address or ASN allocation address policy.
The requirement was removed from the operational practice for IP address and ASN allocation requests via consultation, 2021.4: Retiring the Officer Attestation Requirement. The policy text is clear and understandable.
There was a Staff and Legal Review in August at the request of myself and Joe. At the time there were some concerns within the community that maybe removing this officer attestation would weaken the ability to prosecute fraud. So we took it to Staff and Legal and said let’s see what staff has to say about that.
The Legal Review said no material legal issue, so removing the officer attestation would not materially impact ARIN’s ability to pursue cases of fraud.
Implementation timeframe would be three months. And requirements would be updates to the ARIN Online system, staff training, updates to public documentation, and updates to internal procedures and guidelines.
Okay. What are we talking about as far as the actual text? Here it is.
The problem statement: Again requiring an officer attestation requires unnecessary resources and increases the time to complete an IPv4 transfer. The policy statement currently reads 8.5.5 block size. Organizations may qualify for transfer of large initial block or an additional block, by providing documentation to ARIN which details the use of at least 50 percent of the requested IPv4 block size within 24 months.
And what’s already removed there from that text is what we’re talking about here, is removing the line “An officer of the organization shall attest to the documentation provided to ARIN.”
So the implementation timeline would be immediate. And comments are this is the only remaining mention outside Section 9, which makes good use of the restriction it has.
Due to the cost of IPv4 at this time, there’s enough the thought is that there’s enough of an incentive for companies to be good stewards of their finances and therefore they are aware they do need the IPv4 space. And therefore there’s a concern this is redundant and maybe do away with it.
Again, as mentioned, there was a consultation, 2021.4 — I want to say “dash” but it’s “dot 4” — Retiring the Officer Attestation Requirement.
This went through last year. And the result was ARIN’s practices so this didn’t affect policy but ARIN internally had practices to require officer attestation, which was then retired as a result of the consultation. But they did leave in as an exclusion, they left what was in NRPM, the Number Resource Policy Manual, that has to do with officer attestation, which is 8.5.5.
Okay. Now PPML. We have had a bit of feedback on PPML. Statements in support. Gaining officer attention is a challenge at organizations of significant scale. Removing non-essential verbiage from the NRPM makes it clearer and easier to understand.
Statements in opposition. Officer attestation is a valuable tool in addressing resource fraud. Officer attestation promotes substantial organization awareness, helping with legacy resource service agreements. And officer attestation provides a form of risk mitigation both for organizations and ARIN.
So our questions for the community, we have two. The first is do you support the policy as written? We didn’t include a question about changing the verbiage. It’s sort of a binary thing either we leave it or we pull it out.
The second is are there additional things or thoughts about officer attestation that we should consider as we look at the policy? So those questions to you.
Hollis Kara: With that, we will open the microphone. Folks in the room, feel free to approach, and folks online, please start typing.
Bill Sandiford: All right, folks. Microphones are open. Remote participants, comments welcomed and encouraged. Rear microphone, who might it be?
Kevin Blumberg: Kevin Blumberg, The Wire. I’m going to lose my voice, folks. Come on, you’ve got to come on up here. It’s very helpful.
I’m serious. This is incredibly important for the feedback for the Advisory Council to have this information. Helpful useful or not, big or small, it doesn’t matter, come up, please.
Absolutely support this policy as written. As you said, it’s binary either with we do it or we don’t. But I have one question.
Does the removal of this policy preclude staff from using officer attestation at their will because that is really a company technology? It has nothing to do so if it’s not there, could they not feel that they need it for something irrespective we forced it in policy, but staff could use it for their own reasons and something like that? I’d like sort of a little clarification on that.
Bill Sandiford: All right, clarification stands behind you.
John Sweeting: John Sweeting with ARIN. Absolutely does not keep us from using it if we need to. Although we prefer to use notarized affidavits when we’re asking for special information from officers of the company, which is much better than an attestation.
Kevin Blumberg: Thank you.
Bill Sandiford: Sorry, I didn’t catch it. Did you support? That’s a thumbs up for the record. Thank you. Front microphone.
Chris Tacit: Chris Tacit, Tacit Law, ARIN AC. I definitely support this. And it’s kind of interesting, because in doing the legal review, it actually tied into the fiduciary duty of the Board on risk management more than anything.
So if that’s kind of a signal of the advice that the Board’s going to get, to me that’s really the most critical issue. And assuming it goes forward, the Board will still have to make a final determination on that issue as a matter of its own fiduciary responsibility.
So to the extent there are community members that may still have some concerns, having that legal assessment and having the Board review should provide some comfort. So I fully support this. Thank you.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you, Chris.
Hollis Kara: We do. Beverly, would you like to read that in?
Beverly Hicks: Sure, Ron da Silva, Global, I’m sorry, Network Global, Network Technologies Global I’ll learn how to speak later I support 2022-3 as written.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you, Ron. Rear microphone.
Brian Jones: Brian Jones, Virginia Tech, ARIN AC. I was the one that raised the concern on PPML about raising the awareness level in the organization.
So I’m against this policy as written because I think it does help raise awareness in the organization about IP transfers.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you, Brian.
All right. Last call for comments in the room. Looking to see if there’s anymore online.
Hollis Kara: We have one more online.
Beverly Hicks: Louis Devictoria, Opti9. Currently working on a transfer, and officers see it as a risk to make a written statement. If there is no legal benefit for ARIN, I support it as written.
Bill Sandiford: All right. Thank you. All right. Seeing no one else at the microphone, no one else online.
Hollis Kara: The queue is clear.
Bill Sandiford: All right, we’ll close this one off then. As and always the AC will take your comments into consideration. Thank you.
Hollis Kara: Thank you.
She’s sprinting. I’ve got to run over here. All right. So Alison Wood is going to be presenting on Alyssa Quinn’s behalf. We have Draft Policy ARIN 2022-5: Cleanup of NRPM Section 2.11.
Draft Policy ARIN-2022-5: Clean-up of NRPM Section 2.11
Alison Wood: All right. So just to kind of steal some of Kevin’s fire, this is an amazing policy to kind of cut your teeth at the microphone. So, safe, and I welcome you guys out there. So I would love to see you.
All right. So this is Policy 2022-5. And Alyssa Quinn is the primary shepherd on this policy. And I’m her co-shepherd. And I am here in front of you, and she is here virtually.
So this policy came out of the working group that is cleaning up the NRPM. They’ve been doing some amazing work on that. And this one is based on some definitions around community.
So it came to us in June of 2022.
Beverly Hicks: Alison? Can you step up to the mic so the online people can hear you?
Alison Wood: Sorry, everyone.
It came to us in June of 2022. Became a Draft Policy in July of 2022, because we’re fast movers on this one. Again, it came out of the NRPM Cleanup Working Group. All right.
So this is around the definition of community network. This is something that’s come before the community in the past, which is different from a community network. But you guys can see the pretty minor text change there. There’s two changes to the text, one around the definition of community network and one around community services. It’s pretty straightforward.
All right. So I know you guys have seen this on the PPML. These changes don’t change anything with the actual intention of the text. Just a little bit of a cleanup and simplification.
Somewhat of an editorial change. We didn’t want to push too many editorial changes on the community.
All right. so here we go. Fellows, I encourage you to look at these questions and come to the microphones. Anyone else, do you think that the changes proposed here materially change the meaning of the text? And do you think this makes the text clearer?
Beverly Hicks: And Alyssa is online and has the ability to unmute herself, so she’s ready to communicate.
Hollis Kara: Please approach the microphones or start typing or raise your hand if you are joining us online.
Bill Sandiford: All right. Microphones are now open. Is Alyssa there? Hello, Alyssa.
Alyssa Quinn: Hello. Am I a weird, disembodied voice?
Hollis Kara: You are.
Bill Sandiford: All right. Rear microphone.
Kevin Blumberg: Kevin Blumberg, The Wire. Question: Has community networks ever been used since we last discussed community networks? We’re basically changing definitions on policy that’s never used, that’s gone through multiple, multiple cycles to not be used.
And if that’s the case, and the community network’s policy is not really being used, I absolutely do not support changing policy on things that are never being used.
Does anybody from staff have has this policy even been touched in terms of community networks minus the one person who did it intentionally because it had never been used?
Bill Sandiford: John Sweeting, did you want to answer that now or take a moment to find out?
John Sweeting: John Sweeting, ARIN. I’m looking at Lisa and she’s saying no.
Bill Sandiford: I’m sorry, no
John Sweeting: No, it has never been used.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you.
John Sweeting: But when we attempted there was an attempt to remove this policy from NRPM, and there was quite a bit of objections to that. Just pointing that out.
Kevin Blumberg: To follow up with that, I was the author to remove that policy, the community networks.
It was abandoned. Then there was a policy to change it. That was abandoned.
This is a circular thing with no benefit to the community other than wasting our time. I support abandonment. Thank you.
Bill Sandiford: Front microphone.
Chris Tacit: Chris Tacit, Tacit Law, ARIN AC. I don’t disagree with Kevin at all. But I think the way to come at this is to perhaps revisit abandoning the policy as a whole.
But in the meantime, let’s make the text clear. And I think this could just be treated as an editorial change as well, so it doesn’t necessarily need to consume a lot more community resources to get it through.
I guess my view is we should strive for clarity of what we have, and if what we have needs to go, that’s a separate question for a later date. Thank you.
Bill Sandiford: All right, anything online?
Hollis Kara: Nothing online.
Bill Sandiford: All right, front microphone.
David Huberman: Good morning, David Huberman from ICANN. I speak neither for nor against the policy.
A question and a comment. Question Alyssa, what’s the primary argument, please, for why this is significant enough to not be an editorial change?
Alyssa Quinn: So, it had originally been lumped in with a larger, more omnibus editorial effort. And then it was pulled out separately because the last time we did try to update the community networks policy there were some very strong feelings about it. And the idea here was to make for certain that this doesn’t represent a material change.
And there’s been one comment so far on PPML that it they supported this editorial. But that’s been the extent of the discussions so far.
If the feedback today is that the editorial in nature from you folks in the meeting, then that’s what I’m kind of hearing. That’s appropriate feedback.
David Huberman: Thank you, Alyssa. That’s helpful. The comment I wanted to make to my friend Kevin is I wonder if that’s not if the fact that the policy is not being used while at the same time we know there are many community network operators in our region is not an argument that we do need improvement on the policy to make it clearer and easier for people to choose to use the policy to request services if they need them.
Just a thought. Thank you.
Bill Sandiford: All right. Quick online check. Nothing. All right, front microphone.
Joe Provo: Joe Provo, ARIN AC, Google and NRPM Cleanup Working Group. So indirectly one of the coauthors.
Yes, we strongly considered this editorial. I support it as an editorial change. And I hear Kevin’s concern, but that’s to, Chris’ point, that’s an additional action.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you, Joe.
Closing the microphones shortly. So, please get in queue. And the online participants, please get your comments in. Front microphone, please.
Lee Howard: Lee Howard, IPv4.Global by Hilco Streambank. I partly just wanted to make sure that we indeed have the most comments per word of proposal change.
These three words I cannot I’ve read them several times now and I cannot find how the meaning changes or makes it any clearer. The grammar’s better, especially that first sentence is better grammar. I appreciate that.
I can’t see how it changes the policy at all, and therefore I would have to agree it’s editorial.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you, Lee.
Hollis Kara: I do have a question, comment, coming in from online.
Bill Sandiford: Let’s go that that one, then.
Hollis Kara: Merce from TOG [Mercia Arnold from The Obsidian Group]: Is it possible to retain the opportunity for the ability of those interested in community networks to be informed of the policy?
Alyssa Quinn: Yes, it’s out on PPML and the NRPM exists. The last time that we worked on one of these policies, it just happened to be a contingent of NRALO folks who were associated with community networks at the ARIN meeting, I think it was in New Orleans. So that was a bit of a happy accident.
It doesn’t seem to be the case for this particular meeting.
Bill Sandiford: Actually, they’re all here.
Alyssa Quinn: Oh, really? Come on up if you’re associated with the community network and have feelings and thoughts.
But absolutely, if you know folks associated with the community network, please ask them does this materially change the policy and do you support or not support it? And chime in on PPML or here at the meeting if you’re here.
Bill Sandiford: All right. Thank you, Alyssa.
Seeing no more people at microphones in the room, if there’s is there any more?
Hollis Kara: Queue is clear.
Bill Sandiford: Queue is clear. All right. Thank you, everybody. The AC will take your feedback under guidance. Thanks.
Hollis Kara: Okay. Click on through. Did that part. Next up, Chris Tacit, already on his way to the stage to bring you a discussion of Policy 2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language.
Chris Tacit: Thank you very much, Hollis. Oops, that’s the wrong one. Ours is 2022-8.
Hollis Kara: One second. This is the problem when you have 12 sets of numbers that are remarkably similar and lots of very tired people trying to get slides shuffled in order.
I apologize for the delay. We’ll get the correct slides up momentarily.
Beverly Hicks: You’ll have to give me just a minute. Or if you want to, can we switch order?
Hollis Kara: This is the last policy of this block.
Beverly Hicks: Okay. Give me just a second.
Hollis Kara: Okay, we will tap dance.
Chris Tacit: This was just meant to test whether the caffeine intake worked for me this morning and I would notice.
Hollis Kara: You win. Good job, Chris. I don’t know what’s going on. I apologize.
I want to take a quick poll of folks in the room who went to the social last night. Who thought the wax figures were creepy?
(Show of hands.)
Chris Tacit: It would have been worse if we’d had Alyssa’s voice as well.
Hollis Kara: Did anybody else sit in Edward Scissorhands’s chair? That was horrifying, wasn’t it? For those of you who missed it, if you sat down you got that scissor sound going automatically. It was really disturbing.
All right. We’re stalling. We’re stalling. I am trying to think. Chris, you got a joke?
Chris Tacit: I don’t know.
Hollis Kara: No, no jokes. Anybody here have a joke? Somebody send me a joke. Message me a joke.
From the floor: Curran.
Hollis Kara: No, he’s otherwise occupied.
From the floor: I’ve got a joke.
Hollis Kara: Uhoh. Who is that? Where did that come from?
From the floor: Tech table.
Hollis Kara: Is it a clean joke?
From the floor: Yes.
Hollis Kara: OK,
From the floor: What did the Doritos farmer say to the other Doritos farmer?
Hollis Kara: What did the Doritos farmer say to the other Doritos farmer?
From the floor: Cool ranch!
Hollis Kara: Ahh.
Chris Tacit: Okay, how about a lawyer joke, then?
Hollis Kara: Okay, a palate cleanser. A lawyer joke.
Chris Tacit: Why should lawyers never argue in court?
Hollis Kara: Why?
Chris Tacit: Because it wouldn’t be civil litigation.
Hollis Kara: You guys gotta give me some slides.
Beverly Hicks: I’m going as fast as I can.
Hollis Kara: I know, it’s okay. And on that note, I’d like to direct everyone’s attention to the tech table. That fabulous team is the ones that are making hybrid run smoothly.
And helping for us when we have oopsies or need to shuffle things around. Because we do our best but things happen.
And the transcriptionist, yes.
Who will, once again, lecture me at the end of this meeting that I need to talk slower.
Beverly Hicks: She’s grinning at you.
Hollis Kara: We’ll probably redact the lawyer joke. It seems appropriate.
Wait. Hold on. I’ve got a joke in chat then we’ll go to you, R.S.
Robert Seastrom: I’ll give you a joke, too.
Hollis Kara: Let me do this one first. Why was the desktop late to work?
From the floor: Why?
Hollis Kara: Anybody? Nobody? Because they had a hard drive.
All right. Top it, R.S.
Robert Seastrom: So a gathering of crows is called a murder. And a gathering of penguins is called a rookery. What is a gathering of network engineers called?
Hollis Kara: Oh geez, what? Hit me.
Robert Seastrom: An outage.
Hollis Kara: I wish I had Leif’s reaction on camera. Bam.
Chris Tacit: This has definitely enhanced what would have otherwise been the much more boring presentation.
Hollis Kara: This is the most audience participation we’ve had this morning. This is great.
Beverly Hicks: Chris, I just want to thank you for having a deck that had a similar number to a deck earlier this meeting, so that we could have such entertainment.
Hollis Kara: Yes. You’re ready. We have sufficiently stalled. Back over to you, Chris.
Draft Policy ARIN-2022-8: Streamlining Section 11 Policy Language
Chris Tacit: Thank you. All right. So, my co-shepherd is Andrew Dul. And before going further I’d like to acknowledge him on two counts.
One, for the great work he did with me in revising the language of the text that you’re going to see - proposed text.
And second, for preparing a very handy markup document that is available on the website, to which you can link that more readily shows the changes to this policy, because there is quite a bit of change and it’s very hard to see it any other way. And you’ll see what I mean when I get through the slides.
So, the intent of this policy is basically just to simplify the language of Section 11, which deals with temporary allocations of Number Resources for experimental purposes.
There were some provisions in here that didn’t really apply as policy. And there was also a lot of language that was perhaps a little excessive and we thought could be streamlined significantly. So that’s what we did.
The first slide is easy to show the change because the changes are relatively minor. So, we’re showing it as markup text. The balance of it is more difficult. And I’m not going to try and read it all, but I encourage you, especially after this meeting, if you haven’t had a chance to delve into this and you want to look at it more carefully, to look at the markup document because it is very handy.
But the general thrust of this is to simplify it as much as possible. So, for example, Section 11.1, which started with some requirements but then some of those requirements were in some of the subsequent subsections, has been streamlined to kind of set out the main requirements as bullet points - clean it up that way. So, you can see there are four bullet points.
There’s one change we intend to make here, which is on the second bullet point. This was just a typo right from the beginning. It was also a test to see if anyone in the community was awake, and it worked on both counts.
So, the last word of the second bullet point should actually be “document” and not “policy.”
And the only comments we’ve received on PPML so far was to point out that it was a mistake to have the word “policy” at the end of the second bullet point. So, kudos to those who noticed this.
So, as I said because we’re trying to collapse a bunch of requirements into one streamlined section, a few of the other sections that used to be there are going to be retired. Similarly, we’re cleaning up the language that relates to how long you get these resources for and how they can be renewed if necessary for a longer term.
Also, we have clarity that if you have separate experiments, you need separate requests. And that’s what the new language in Section 11.5 does.
Again, there was a fee linkage in the policy. We didn’t think that was appropriate. Fees shouldn’t be in policy. So, we deleted that as well.
And then, again, we streamlined the guideline section that says where these resources come from and what kind of allocations are the default allocations and what you need to do if you want something that’s not automatically a minimum allocation.
So, again, if there’s commercial use, that’s not allowed under the policy. And again, all we did here was clean up the language related to that. There’s really no change in the thrust of that requirement to prohibit commercial use and allow clawbacks if necessary if there’s a breach of that.
There was this very weird appeal or arbitration clause which, really, I don’t know, it would be interesting to go through the history of how that came to be. But really, it’s not really operative. So, we took that out completely.
And, as I mentioned, the documents - both clean and markup version - are available at these links. And you can find them there either through the slides or directly by going on the ARIN website under the text relating to this policy.
So, having given you that brief thing on this, I would like to ask you, “Does the proposed text clearly reflect the overall community intent? And are there any other substantive changes required to the policy?”
Because we really focused on not so much changing it but streamlining it and getting things that really didn’t relate to policy out of it. But this is also an opportunity, since it’s a wholesale review, to consider whether there were any substantive changes required. Thank you.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you, Chris.
Hollis Kara: Microphones are open. Questions in the room, please approach the mics on the floor. Questions online, please start typing or raise your hand.
Bill Sandiford: Rear microphone.
Leo Jwada: Thank you. Leo Jwada, Consumers Council of Canada. Can we see the slide for 11.5? There appears to be a grammatical mistake. It says, “if required for the conduct of recognized experimental activity.”
As far as I know, conduct doesn’t mean the same thing when used as a noun. It would sound better if it was, “if required to conduct recognized experimental activity.”
I could be wrong, but I looked it up last night and I couldn’t find anything. Thank you.
Bill Sandiford: The AC will take a look at that. Thank you. Rear microphone.
Kevin Blumberg: Kevin Blumberg, The Wire. Question for staff related to this policy. How many times has the experimental policy been used in the last five years? Let’s be generous.
John Sweeting: Experimental… we still have some experimental allocations today.
Kevin Blumberg: How many times has the policy been used?
John Sweeting: Probably, like, three. I can think of three.
Kevin Blumberg: Okay. So, question, then, does ARIN dedicate IPv4 space that is not in the wait list, that is specifically for experimental? Like, are you holding space for experimental purposes?
John Sweeting: No, we are not. If somebody came in for experimental IPv4 space, they would have to go on the wait list today.
Kevin Blumberg: You’ve done an exceptionally good job of cleaning up text that really now the question becomes, if you can’t get IPv4 space, should the policy be really experimental for v6 and ASN? Because either you’re taking away from somebody who’s legitimately on the Wait List to do an experiment or not.
That’s the first real question is have we now gone well beyond where ARIN should not be giving out for v4 experimental.
I’ll be honest, the other problem is there are so many complexities with this policy in terms of giving out space, I’d love to hear from some educational institutions how all of the public disclosure and public this and public that, how any one of your compliance or legal teams would allow this to go through rather than using your own space for an experiment.
So, I sort of support it, Chris, with some changes to removing out v4, because that is detrimental. But the second part to this, this is actually really complicated for an organization, an educational organization to use. So, is that why this really isn’t being used that often?
Bill Sandiford: Any comments online?
Hollis Kara: Nothing so far.
Bill Sandiford: Any further from the room?
All right. Seeing and hearing none, we’ll move on then. And thank you for your comments. The AC will take it into consideration.
Hollis, I want to get in on this comedy hour.
Hollis Kara: Please do. I’ve got another one too that I want to share.
Bill Sandiford: Folks, are you ready for this one? It’s very specific to our topics here. Where does one go to view legacy IP resource addresses?
From the floor: arin.net.
Bill Sandiford: To the ARIN space museum.
Hollis Kara: We’ve got another comment at the microphone.
Leo Jwada: I have a follow-up to the group joke. What do you call a group of programmers?
Hollis Kara: What’s that?
Leo Jwada: An argument.
Hollis Kara: You’re not wrong.
Okay, we’re at the end of our first policy block. We’ll pull forward a presentation that was planned for later in the day.
Before we do, I did get a very Hollywood appropriate backchannel joke that I can’t not share.
I’m not going to out the staff member that sent this to me, but basically it goes like this:
George Clooney, Leonardo DiCaprio, and Matthew McConaughey get together to make a movie. Clooney says, “I’ll direct.” DiCaprio says, “I’ll act.” And McConaughey says, “I’ll write, I’ll write, I’ll write [alright, alright, alright].”
Sorry. I just needed the moment.
So next up. I’m going to ask Leif to come up and keep the energy going for me, because I know he can with our Advisory Council Report.
Leif Sawyer: I’d like to thank the academy.
Advisory Council Report
Leif Sawyer: My partner and teammate, Darren Kara, no relation.
Welcome, everybody, to our last day. Our amazing team right here - 15 Advisory Council members - they’ve put in a lot of work over the last year. And as you’ve seen today, we’ve got a few more to go.
But virtual or physical or hybrid, we’ve put in 21 monthly conference calls since the start of the pandemic. We’ve had 20-plus foreign RIR meetings that we’ve attended either virtually or when things opened up, started traveling again to our five Public Policy Consultations and yearly onboard meetings.
We meet a lot to talk about policy. Thirty-seven policies that we’ve worked on since 2020. And three very busy working groups. A big hand to all the work that they’ve done, including that full PDP rewrite.
That was an exceptionally big piece of work. And you guys, you deserve all the accolades for that. I’d give you this [prop award statuette] but it’s mine. I need to get another one, right?
So, so far in 2022, we’ve had 13 policies received. Three have advanced for adoption, seven draft, two editorial, one recommended. And a couple of comparisons here for what we did in previous years.
And it’s not slowing down. Right? We are looking at probably another nine or so coming out of this Policy Experience Report coming up and then some more starting off in the new year.
We’ll probably reach April with 20 to 25 policies on the docket. So, I’m sure you all want to be - where is April again?
Hollis Kara: Tampa, Florida.
Leif Sawyer: Tampa, Florida. It will be warm again. Come on down, bring your shorts and your bathing towels and enjoy policy.
So, speaking of those three groups a-working.
Our Number Resource Policy and Manual Working Group: All of these were started in 2020 seven policies generated so far in 2022 from the working group and staff feedback.
Policy Experience Report: Also, seven policy proposals generated. And we’re looking forward to the post-ARIN 50 report coming up.
And of course, as mentioned, not too many times I hope, the PDP bought us a new car! And a new PDP.
Comments are currently under review. I know Andrew and Amy and the rest of them on there have been working diligently getting all of the feedback put into the edited revision and will be working on that as soon as we get out of here.
And then we have so much thanks. Not just the staff and support group here, but to our AC members: We are a family and occasionally we lose our favorite uncle or aunt, right, because they move away. And it’s not that we don’t see them again. It’s just hard to keep up with the Jones’ sometimes.
So, Joe and Alyssa and Kerrie, thank you so much for all your work.
We can’t see you standing up, disembodied voice, but I know you are.
And we hope that in the future we’ll see you again, should you desire to come back into the fold.
And so, I want to leave you with some questions here. As the community, what do you want to see? Right? You can help shape the future of the AC. What do you want to talk about in our lunch table topics? What would you like us to be working on? What’s your favorite cat?
If you have any questions, any comments, send them to me, please. Email address is right there. I’m happy to take on anything and bring it back to the AC, bring it back to staff or the Board as necessary, wherever it seems to fit.
And thank you very much. And if you have any questions, my name has been Bill Sandiford.
Hollis Kara: Thank you, Leif. Any questions or comments for Leif?
No. All right. You are free to go, sir. Thank you.
And the award for the best accent goes to Leif Sawyer.
Moving right along, we’re still you all need to wake up. We need to not so much policy right after a social. But, anyway, it’s the way the cookie crumbled.
I’d like to welcome our esteemed treasurer, Nancy Carter, to come up to give everyone’s favorite: the Financial Report. Let’s go, Nancy.
Nancy Carter: Good morning, I know this is what you’ve all been waiting for, so thank you for being patient for the last day and a half, with apologies to all my other presenters. But this is the best part of the meeting, right? Excellent.
So good morning, the ARIN Treasurer’s Report is one of the highlights of this meeting as I’ve indicated to many of you many times.
Okay. So, through repetition comes learning.
I’m delighted to be here in Hollywood to present to you in person at ARIN 50.
I readily acknowledge that I could not serve as treasurer without the help and support of the ARIN staff and my colleagues on the Board of Trustees.
I want to thank especially the Financial Services Department for their continued commitment to evolving the Financial Services department. So, thanks to Brian, Ray, Tammy, Melissa, Tanya, Cathleen, Amy, and Amaris. Collectively, they are the team that continues to make my job as treasurer super easy.
I would be remiss if I did not also thank Alyssa for keeping us organized and providing support to the Finance Committee. This is definitely a team sport.
I think I should have done that sooner, sorry.
Today I’m going to update you on you the 2022 activities of the Finance Committee or Finance Committee. I will then review ARIN’s financials year-to-date and provide highlights of the investment portfolio and then finally look at the net assets.
So, as you can see, the CFO and I continued to keep the Finance Committee super busy. So far this year we’ve met six times. We have provided oversight of the financial results of the organization. We’ve monitored our investment results in conjunction with our investment advisors. We’ve met with the auditors and tax advisors, and we’ve reviewed policies and budgets. And most recently we’ve been working on next year’s 2023 budget.
We continue to be impressed with the work of our investment advisors and our audit firm. This is a second year for both of those firms. And their dedication to our results and compliance requirements, and their capacity to communicate with the Finance Committee, has been really, really appreciated by the members of the Finance Committee.
So as some of you know, this is my favorite time of the year. Not only is it my birthday coming up, but it’s budget time. And who doesn’t love budget time?
Management has presented -
(Humorous indiscernible comment from crowd.)
Hey, no, no, no.
That’s the wrong answer.
Management has presented the 2023 budget to the Finance Committee twice so far this month and most recently on Wednesday of this week.
The Finance Committee recommended and received approval of the 2023 budget at the Wednesday Board meeting. So, you can expect to hear more about that at ARIN 51, when you arrive with your shorts and your towel and whatever else Leif suggested that you bring.
This chart shows you ARIN’s financial position at the end of August 2022 compared to the same period in 2021.
The most notable change in assets is, of course, the decrease in investment values. This is not unexpected given the tough times that we’ve seen in the market this year. And I’ll speak a little bit more about that later on. In the liability sections, there are a couple of items to note.
The deferred revenue has increased by $2.6 million. And this is the result of the fee harmonization pricing change that was implemented on January 1st and how those fees are recognized over a 12-month period.
We also have new equipment lease liabilities that are reflected. ARIN has established a program for financing certain of our computer equipment to spread the payment of such equipment over three years.
And finally, we have net assets changing by the combined change in assets and liabilities. I will also talk about the net assets a little later.
This chart is the statement of activities, which summarizes the revenues and expenses for the first eight months of this fiscal year.
Through August, our operations resulted in a slight deficit of $129,000. This is a decrease from the prior year’s surplus of $290,000 but is ahead of our 2022 budgeted deficit for the period.
2022 investment losses are $3.5 million through the end of August. Interestingly, and in a very curious kind of way, this loss is very close to investment gains that we realized during the same period in 2021.
You should not be alarmed by the total deficit of $3.6 million. Investment losses do not affect our operating funds and available cash was a very healthy $4.6 million at the end of August.
Here we see total revenues to the end of August 2022 compared to 2021 and also compared to the budget for this year.
There’s not much surprise regarding revenue performance during 2022. 2022 revenues are well ahead of 2021 revenues, but pretty much as expected due to the pricing change.
There are two items to note here. Network transfer fees are ahead of budget due to an unexpected increase in transactions; and Org Create and Recovery fees are lower than planned due to fewer transactions than anticipated.
As a reminder, this is the first year that ARIN is charging for these particular services. And it could be that this charge is lowering demand.
Here we present the details of the operating expenses from the statement of activities. The results are for the eight months ending August 31st of this year, compared to 2021 and budgeted amounts for that same eight-month period.
So, there’s a few items that I want to point out to you. First, salaries and benefits are always the largest expense line for ARIN, representing 65 percent of total operating expenses.
The 2022 expense of $10.5 million is eight percent more than 2021. And this is driven by approximately five percent growth in head count.
Second, travel expenses are returning to pre-COVID levels and ARIN expects to spend about $1 million for combined staff and volunteer travel in 2022.
And finally, professional fees are higher than both 2021 actual and 2022 budget. Legal costs are driving this difference as ARIN has incurred fees necessary to support the stability of the RIR system while AFRINIC deals with legal issues, as you heard John discuss yesterday.
I now turn your attention to the ARIN investments. Here we have some additional information regarding the investment results. As you can see in this chart, a 14 percent loss in value during 2022 has decreased total investments to $30.3 million by the end of August of this year.
This value is just a little higher than the value of our investments at the end of 2019.
While ARIN’s not happy about the losses we’ve sustained in this year, we continue to maintain a long-term view of our investments. We believe that a well-diversified portfolio, consistent with our attitude toward risk, will allow the investments to recover the losses over time.
On a positive note, the asset allocation changes that were recommended for our portfolio and subsequently implemented in Q2 of last year to lower the investment portfolio’s overall risk have performed well. Our 2022 loss of 14 percent is lower than overall market losses.
So, on this slide, you can see the details of the changes that were made to our asset allocations. The darker bars show the current allocations. So, helping to reduce our 2022 losses was a decrease in stock investments and an increase in our fixed income investments from 35 percent to 57 percent.
The Finance Committee continues to work with our investment advisors to align the portfolio with ARIN’s expectations towards risk and return.
And finally, net assets are shown on this chart. The decrease in net assets mentioned in one of my earlier charts puts downward pressure on our net asset coverage measures. The number of months of operating expenses covered by net assets has decreased to just under 13 months due to the decrease in net assets.
Despite the decrease in this measure, ARIN’s financial position is strong, as I mentioned earlier, and as indicated by a combined total of cash and investments of $36.5 million.
And with that, I turn to my last slide. Thank you for your attention. I’m happy to answer any questions.
Hollis Kara: The queues are open. If we have any questions coming from online, please get typing. Otherwise, approach the floor mics. See, Nancy, you are popular. All right.
Nancy Carter: Hopefully, I have some answers.
Hollis Kara: Go ahead first.
David Huberman: Good morning. David Huberman, ICANN. Thank you very much, Nancy. As always, it’s appreciated.
To what extent does the longtime commitment ARIN has had to a two-year operating reserve reconcile with ideas for new spending?
IETF endowment fund: Not picking on that particularly - a big fan - but to what extent do those two things, how do those reconcile when our reserve is now below a two-year operating?
Nancy Carter: So, I’m not John — and would like to speak — but I’d just like to say that our commitment has recently been to one year, not two years. And so, I think that perhaps that might change your thoughts about your question.
But definitely, we are thinking as a Board about how we can make investments in the current situation.
John Curran: If I could elaborate a little bit, so the Board has discussed over the last decade or so whether one year operating is appropriate or two years. And then also more recently, under the increased financial discipline we’ve had in the last few years - which I credit to Nancy, by the way - we’ve actually begun budgeting our revenues against our operating expenses and just our revenues, not our revenues and expected investment gains.
It used to be the one, two or three million that would be gained through investment, we used as a cushion when doing our budgeting. Well, we have a balanced budget. See, all of your revenue plus the five percent we’ll get from investments, we’re good.
We now budget to our revenues, nothing more. Which means that the investment reserves, to the extent that they do gain every year, compound in the investment account.
And that means that the good news is that we do expect those numbers to increase. I’m not sure you want to use the investment numbers, reserves themselves as the measure.
I think Nancy did a great job with the last slide, which is the net asset coverage is really the question, because it’s the investment reserves plus whatever we have cash on hand that’s not committed - the net assets - and how many months they cover. Right now, we’re looking at 13, 14 months, depending on the month and where we are.
That’s a very, very healthy number. Whether the Board wants more than that is a matter of discussion, obviously, less you could see an organization saying 12 months net asset coverage is more than sufficient to handle any downturn, et cetera.
Now, as to the question of, what do we do what do we do when we decide we have more net assets than we need in reserves and on hand, what do we do with them? The FinCom - I don’t know if it showed up in the list of activities - but we have actually been talking about how to handle a situation if we get into a bountiful excess of reserves and what sort of worthy projects we put that towards.
I will say that got put on hold this year because the possibility of our investments going up and triggering that sort of condition became much more remote when the economy did a downturn.
It’s something that the Board talks about. There’s actually a draft of a note, but we put it on hold because we didn’t think it was necessarily something we needed this year.
It is something before the FinCom to come up with an idea of how to use excess reserves long term. Hope that gives you the full context, David.
Nancy Carter: Thank you, John. And could I just reiterate, and perhaps I didn’t mention in my earlier slide, but the Board approved this week the recommended budget. And it is a balanced budget for 2023.
Chris Tacit: Thank you very much for the great presentation, very clear and understandable and shows very good oversight.
I just have two questions. One may actually may not be for you specifically, but it’s based on something you said. And that was you talked about how Org creations were instituting fees for the first time and that may reduce demand.
My question really is to the organization about whether, if that’s true well, A, whether we should try and see if that relationship exhibitions. If it’s true, whether that’s something that’s actually desirable from an operational perspective for ARIN. So, I don’t know who wants to address that. It may not be…
Nancy Carter: Do I call a friend here? I think maybe this is a - oh, Brian, thank you.
Brian Kirk: I’m Brian Kirk. I’m the CFO. To answer the question regarding the number of Org Creates actually coming into the organization, one problem we’ve had this year is the fact that we are billing for the Org Create and Org Recovery prior to doing any work. And there has been hundreds and hundreds of actually invoices that have gone out that have not been paid.
So, by implementing this policy of billing before doing the work, we’re actually avoiding unnecessary work in the RSD department.
Chris Tacit: Thank you. My second question is really one of interest in the investment categories. Can you give some examples of what are real assets and alternative investments? I’m just curious what fits those categories. I don’t need names.
Nancy Carter: I’m going to call on Brian again.
Brian Kirk: The real asset is representing our real estate fund. And the alternative investment is a hedge fund.
Chris Tacit: Thank you very much. Great work.
Nancy Carter: Thanks, Chris. Mr. Dul.
Andrew Dul: Andrew Dul, 8 Continents. The note about the IETF endowment potential contribution, what criteria is the Board considering for when and how to do that? And is there a number that has been batted around or coalesced around?
Nancy Carter: ‘Coalesced around.’ That’s a very interesting word. I think John is going to talk to this. But it’s definitely something that we’re looking at and thinking about and digging into in a big way, Andrew. Go ahead, John.
John Curran: Thank you, Nancy. For context, ARIN did pledge a million dollars to the IETF endowment, and it actually pledged 2 million, but actually made a $1 million contribution, and indicated we’d make a second million contribution when there were other parties.
Now, that second million is just a pledge. It’s not binding, per se. I will say that the IETF has done quite a bit of work to work on restructuring the endowment so it’s a little clearer before than it was before about how those funds will be used and how they’ll be held.
And they’ve managed to get a matching arrangement. ISOC is actually matching two-for-one money that’s contributed to the IETF endowment up to the first $12 million.
So, there’s a thought that, well, now that they’ve made things clearer and found additional support, that it might be time to actually revisit that pledge and see if it’s timely.
At the same time, I would say the IETF has a lot of moving parts. They’re in the middle of some changes. They’ve done a formal incorporation with an LLC. They also have intellectual property trust that it needs. And so, we’ve started the engagement process with them to try to figure out what we contribute to and how it makes sense.
It’s also true that the other RIRs are also interested in these because we’ve - the other RIRs have also been approached, collectively through the NRO - we’ve been approached for support.
So, it’s a moving target. We’re trying to figure out how best to support the IETF. And hopefully we’ll have more news in the future. But it’s very active discussion right now. Thank you.
Nancy Carter: Mr. Howard.
Lee Howard: Hi, Lee Howard, IPV4.Global by Hilco Streambank. First, I’d like to say that you and the Finance Committee and Brian should be congratulated on protecting the assets. That’s a fantastic job and foreseeing that and taking the investment advisors’ input of course. But fantastic job on that because, when I saw the number, I went you significantly outperformed the market and indeed. I appreciate the fiscal responsibility there.
Second, I just wanted to say I also really appreciate the level of detail and clarity of this presentation. It’s fantastic. Thank you.
Nancy Carter: Thank you.
Hollis Kara: Nancy, I do have one question coming in for you from online. If I can get my speaker on. Okay. Do we have you? Celeste, are you there? Celeste, you need to unmute your mic. Hand went down. Never mind. False alarm.
Nancy Carter: I have a joke. Can I tell a finance joke?
Hollis Kara: Yes, we would love a finance joke.
Nancy Carter: It seems that was the thing to do today.
Hollis Kara: Absolutely.
Nancy Carter: A woman went to the doctor who told her she had only 12 months to live. “Oh, no,” said the woman. “What should I do?” “Marry an accountant,” said the doctor. “Why,” she said. “Would that make me live longer?” And the doctor said, “no, but it will seem a lot longer.”
Brian Kirk: I’m not sure I like that joke.
Hollis Kara: Brian would like to file a complaint. All right. Thank you, Nancy.
And guess what, guys? We’ve killed enough time. It’s time to go to break. We will be - oops, that’s not what’s next. Never mind, I’m going to stop with this.
We’re going to go to break. Break is back outside again today. We’ll be starting back with our second policy block at 10:40. So, please, go get your caffeine. I’d like to see a little bit more action at the microphones in the next policy block, if we can muster it. Thanks, guys.
Policy Block III
Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended
Hollis Kara: Welcome back. We’ll start our policy block with Joe Provo, who is going to lead us in discussion of Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended.
Joe Provo: I erroneously took your advice for the audience and got my caffeine. So, I have to slow down now so it will be fine for transcription.
Hollis Kara: Thank you, Joe.
Joe Provo: Hello, everybody. “2022-9: Leasing Not Intended.” It was myself and Brian Jones as the shepherds who were on this.
And normally I’d zip through the history, but just a note on the history, the AC received this in March. You did not see this in the previous meeting of the year because we as the shepherds have worked with the authors on the text, and the AC voted to formally remand it back to the authors.
But we managed to get this moving forward in a place where the AC could agree that it’s in shape to get in front of the community because we wanted to get the direct input and feedback. We do believe the current text still needs work. So, let’s just delve into it.
Not going to regurgitate everything, but as it is, a bit of a long problem statement. We’ll dwell here for a little bit where it speaks to how in our IPv6 policies we clearly state things regarding property rights. And in the v4 policies that’s not aligned.
And that lays the justification for removing the - again, we look at 6.4.1 here where we speak to address space not considered property. And the intent of this policy is to make more of an aligned statement overall where 6.4.1 is struck. And there’s new text in Section 1 that clearly makes the statement.
And it means across all address families here. And that there are - speaking to these addresses as being resources in the public that are delegated for utility. Within networks there’s a line in here - a couple lines in here we’ll probably be coming back to - but there’s a line in here that speaks towards direct connectivity, which raised some eyebrows. And we’ll speak to that a bit.
Continues on. Has a bit of, as I said, we consider the text needing continued work. And it speaks directly to the actions of leasing.
And we often have within our proposals, there is additional information that’s often not used. And here the authors had brought forward that there are situations in the other regions where there are policies that are being brought forward that are similar in intent. And how staff treats leasing in other regions as well.
In terms of the actual feedback we had, there was some chatter. There’s some volume. But it really was down to about 11 participants where four were positive, four were negative and three were just not clear where their stance was.
Even the positive ones were saying more in principle and the text needs work. The recurring theme of this is still early days for how this is going to go.
And I mentioned the direct connectivity language. That raised a lot of eyebrows whether it’s historical use of previous provider space. In our region there’s often, like, larger academic institutions that have subsites, satellites, or affiliate institutions, for which they have maybe a financial or administrative oversight and allowed them to use their resources. But they don’t necessarily have direct connectivity. That’s pretty common amongst our academic institutions in the region.
And there had been some concern regarding RSA overlap which may have been a misinterpretation of some of the terms that had been discussed earlier, yesterday, regarding the changes around Section 7 and both RSA version 12 and 13.
And they had not intended to create a globally coordinated policy. That was raised as a concern on PPML itself.
And basically we’re here as the AC trying to shepherd this proposal through the process and come speak with you all to say, “first and foremost, should we continue work on this at all? Are there concepts, elements, ideas that you think need to go forward? Does it all need to stop?”
And originally, when this was in the pipeline, we did have 2021-6, which was sort of a bookend opposite, as it were, regarding the leasing in our region. As that was actually abandoned, should the entire principle of this be scoped down to purely focus on justification? Or do people think that this still has other elements it needs to speak to?
Depending how the question of “do we wish to continue to work on this,” Brad and I have some additional slides with some text to discuss. But if people say, “don’t keep working on it,” we’re not going to bother.
So, with that, I’d like to open the floor for some comments.
Hollis Kara: All right. We’re ready to open the floor for discussion on Draft Policy 2022-9. So, folks in the virtual or online, please start typing. And otherwise approach the mic and wait for our moderator, Mr. Sandiford, to join us on stage.
Bill Sandiford: Front microphone.
Hollis Kara: Thank you, Bill.
Chris Tacit: Chris Tacit, Tacit Law, ARIN AC. First of all, I just wanted to kind of give some color as to what’s happening in at least one other region.
Anita and I recently attended the LACNIC meeting where this same policy was discussed there. And the reaction from that crowd was that they were generally in favor of the policy, but they had problems with the implementation, the way and also the direct connection issue was a big stumbling block as well.
So, what I took from the meeting was, go work on it some more and bring it back, but the issue is a live one.
Having said that, I take a slightly different view in our region. First of all, I object to any policy that has legally declaratory statements in it. I just don’t think that’s policy. I think that’s somebody trying to make a declaratory legal statement. And for that reason alone, I have a real problem with the thrust of that policy.
And also, the way that it’s implemented is very complex. I know the leasing issue is important and needs to be worked one way or another. I think there’s clearly some tensions there between how you deal with needs based policy. I can actually see ways in which leasing would help that greatly. At the same time, balancing that with the concern of registry accuracy, which is also critical. There are probably better ways to deal with that than this draft.
So, I would like to see this draft abandoned, personally, and see a different approach taken regardless of which way the issue gets resolved. Thank you.
Bill Sandiford: Is there anything online?
Hollis Kara: Not so far.
Bill Sandiford: Rear microphone.
Kevin Blumberg: Kevin Blumberg, The Wire. Speaking for myself. Joe, I need your help here. Does this actually change the status quo within NRPM? It may be clarifying some things, but does it change the status quo in relation to leasing?
Joe Provo: We had not - because the text is still so lumpy, we had not put this forward to a formal Staff and Legal. But if Mr. Sweeting wishes to speak to how leasing is actually used, because that did come up on PPML and he did provide some official words there.
John Sweeting: John Sweeting with ARIN. Today leasing cannot be used for obtaining resources from ARIN, nor can it be used for justification for recipients in transfers. So, I’m not sure if this policy goes into saying if we find people leasing that we would revoke space. But if it does then that would be a change in policy.
But just to say that it’s not a needs justification, that would change nothing.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you.
Kevin Blumberg: Based on that and the verbiage, especially the legal verbiage, I have no idea what a freehold anything is. And I don’t know if that is something consistent among regions or I don’t really want to have the legal team reading the NRPM for specific words.
That really stuck out like a sore thumb, but if it’s not changing the status quo, then I support not working on this or not continuing it.
Bill Sandiford: We have a coffee incident on aisle two.
John Curran: Clean up on aisle two.
I have no view about the policy.
Bill Sandiford: John, one second.
Joe Provo: To Kevin’s point, since I had kind of said that we acknowledged that the text was lumpy, and to your point and Chris’ regarding legalese, I did want to say that Brian and I put together possible updates to completely streamline this down where it was just very straightforward problem statement, and the policy text did not have any legalese in it.
If we were not to abandon this and continue work on a scopeddown version, something like this would be preferred.
Kevin Blumberg: To answer that or to reply to that, I think that’s a new policy. And if somebody comes up with a very simple, articulate way of defining and just for clarity, I think that is a very different policy from what we have here. And, again, if the stats quo isn’t being changed I don’t know that that would be needed.
Joe Provo: Thank you.
Kevin Blumberg: Thank you.
Bill Sandiford: Thanks, Kevin. Go to the rear microphone.
John Curran: John Curran, president and CEO of ARIN. I have no view on the policy one way or the other. But I want to elaborate on what John Sweeting said.
To the extent that the proposed policy doesn’t change how ARIN processes requests of the registry, that is, generally says, if it’s not needed, we shouldn’t do it. The other argument that occasionally comes up on policy text is increasing clarity makes it easier for people who come in and want to do something. If they can see something explicitly called out, it sometimes helps them in their processing.
I don’t know where this one comes one way or the other. But I want to say the fact that a policy doesn’t necessarily change what ARIN does isn’t automatically a reason not to do if it improves clarity. It’s a community call one way or the other.
Bill Sandiford: Thanks, John. Front microphone.
Chris Woodfield: Chris Woodfield, Twitter, ARIN AC. I’m threading a logical needle that probably has some faults in the threading, so please call me out where this thread of logic is mistaken because it probably is.
All resource allocations are based on needs, which is needs based justifications. Leasing is implicitly, not explicitly, but implicitly not a use case that can be used in a needs-based justification situation.
Therefore, an operator that is leasing addresses is, at least in theory, not using their space consistent with their justification and therefore could be considered in violation of the RSA.
If that’s the case, and assuming I haven’t made any leaps of logic, I don’t think there’s any necessity to explicitly state that leasing is an RSA violation because one could, in theory, could make a line of logic that says that’s already the case.
Bill Sandiford: All right. I’m told nothing online, correct?
Hollis Kara: Nothing online.
Bill Sandiford: All right, front microphone.
Lee Howard: Lee Howard, IPv4.Global by Hilco Streambank. Kind of responding to Kevin and Chris there, just because one can - I don’t like a policy that’s articulated as “one could argue.” That’s not good policy. Right? We should be explicit.
I think we do lack clarity in this area. So, I think that we do need this keep working to clarify. I’m not ready to propose text. And so, I’m not able to but I do think that there’s inconsistency.
I also - this is even more in response to Chris - I would definitely want to make sure that we don’t have a wedge condition where Public Policy and RSA are in any way in conflict. That sounds like a terrible idea. And I’m pretty sure there’s a couple of folks named John who strongly agree with that.
Bill Sandiford: Seeing one last person approaching the microphones, anyone online.
Hollis Kara: No one online.
Bill Sandiford: Rear microphone.
Amy Potter: Amy Potter, ARIN Advisory Council. I just think it would be more effective to discuss leasing as a community with a refreshed policy, so I’m in favor of abandoning this one rather than trying to switch up the language.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you. Last Call for microphones. Rear microphone.
Brian Jones: Just as a follow-up to Lee, do you want to see us continue to work on this particular text or a new policy?
Lee Howard: And that was who?
Brian Jones: Brian Jones of Virginia Tech, ARIN AC. Thank you.
Lee Howard: Lee Howard. I think Amy actually said it better. I intended to say we should keep working on the area on clarifying what the policy is. But I’m not at all convinced that this is the structure to use for it.
Bill Sandiford: All right. If there’s no one online, we will move on.
Hollis Kara: Sounds good.
Bill Sandiford: All right, thank you everybody for your comments and feedback. The AC will take it under advisement. Thank you.
Hollis Kara: Thank you, everyone.
All right, next up we have Alison Wood back again to talk about ARIN Draft Policy 2022-11. Cleanup of the NRPM: Introduction to Section 2.17.
Draft Policy ARIN-2022-11: Clean-up of NRPM – Introduction of Sections 2.17 and 2.18
Alison Wood: Thank you very much. Hello, again, everyone. I’m Alison Wood, and my co-shepherd on this policy was Chris Woodfield there in the back.
This is another change that came out of the NRPM Working Group. And here we go.
All right, this is a text clarification and some definitions. One is defining IANA. It does appear in the NRPM, but there was no clear definition of IANA.
And the second part of this is defining what Internet Number Resources are.
So, I did speak with Amanda Baber with IANA. She’s an operations manager over there, and she provided some clarification and direction on what they wanted the definition to be. And so, we have gone ahead and put that in the proposal.
Let’s see. So, this is just kind of a little recap of some of those editorial changes that have come up. And I guess I should probably go back - I’m sorry, I want to move this microphone. There we go.
All right. So, I’m going to go back, and I would love to know if the community approves the definition that we have up here of IANA and also how you feel about how we have defined Internet Number Resources.
So, if you guys would like to approach the mics, I would love to hear what you have to say.
Kate Gerry: Kate Gerry, NetActuate. 2.17 has IANA reference described twice.
Hollis Kara: I’m sorry, what was that, Kate?
Kate Gerry: Under 2.17, it has the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, IANA, Internet Assigned Numbers Authority, IANA.
Alison Wood: I’m sorry, I couldn’t hear your question.
Kate Gerry: I don’t know if it’s the slides or the policy is written wrong for 2.17. Oh, I’m sorry. I think it’s good.
Alison Wood: Perfect. Thank you, Kate.
Bill Sandiford: Rear microphone.
Leo Vegoda: I’m Leo Vegoda, And Polus. Why are we trying to define IANA, instead of just pointing to the IANA government’s documents elsewhere?
Alison Wood: Because it was referred to throughout the NRPM. And so, there was a bit of confusion on why it was never defined.
Leo Vegoda: I appreciate that there was no definition. I’m saying why are you trying to come up with text instead of pointing to an authoritative reference elsewhere?
Alison Wood: Just for clarification. But I’m happy to take that under advisement.
Bill Sandiford: That’s good feedback. Thank you.
Leif Sawyer: Leif Sawyer, ARIN AC. I believe the original reason was that there was link breakage to the definition. So, we’re referencing it here so that that doesn’t happen in the future.
Bill Sandiford: Any online?
Hollis Kara: So far, no.
Bill Sandiford: Great. We’ll continue at the rear microphone.
Matthew Wilder: If I can barge in, Matthew Wilder, ARIN AC. I wrote some of the text here, along with the members of the NRPM Working Group. And exactly what Leif said, there’s concern that if you point to a particular document, there’s no guarantee that’s always going to be there. So, we just wanted to put minimal text in here, not trying to comprehensively define what IANA is, but just the basics for the NRPM.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you, Matthew.
Again, at the rear microphone, and inviting those online to get your comments in. Do we have one?
Hollis Kara: We do have one.
Bill Sandiford: Okay, we’ll do the rear microphone first then we’ll go to online.
Kevin Blumberg: Kevin Blumberg, The Wire. Linking to specific resources obviously is a bad idea - URLs, whatever it may be. On the ASO and on a number of other sites related to this, we have had major link breakage over the years when that’s done. So, I do not support that.
However, pointing to their website for more information. So having a very brief - I don’t think you even need 2.1.8. 2.1.7 gives a very brief overview of what IANA is. For more information and website link.
Alison Wood: Okay.
Kevin Blumberg: Linking to specific documents is not a good idea for policy. Thank you.
Alison Wood: Got it. Thank you, Kevin.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you, Kevin. Last call in the room and then we’ll go online.
Beverly Hicks: Celeste Anderson from Pacific Wave. This looks like an editorial change. Not sure it’s a policy.
Alison Wood: Okay, thank you. We didn’t want to push a bunch of editorial changes just within the closed doors of the council. And so, we felt it was really important to bring changes, both editorial and non, to this meeting and get your feedback. So, thank you very much, Celeste.
Bill Sandiford: All right. And seeing no further comments, we’ll move on to the next one. And thank you, everyone, for your comments and feedback on this one as well.
Hollis Kara: Thank you.
Draft Policy ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update
Hollis Kara: All right. Next up, Rob Seastrom, come on down. Next up, we’ve got Draft Policy 2022-12, Direct Assignment Language Update. It’s a long walk.
Robert Seastrom: That’s great. I have two minutes. Oh, that must be left over from yesterday.
So, Leif and I are the shepherds on this. We just had a question about whether something was editorial or not.
This Policy Proposal is administrative, but it is very much not editorial because of the possible knock-on effects of deleting a whole bunch of language out of the NRPM.
We don’t have direct assignments anymore. Well, we do, but they’re not utilized for any kind of differentiation for purposes of billing, and I don’t think for any other purposes. So, there’s language around them that’s been deprecated and it should be modernized according to this Policy Proposal.
And there are a whole bunch of places where direct allocation is in policy and could be removed. So, the timetable for implementation is immediate.
Questions for the policy for the community: “Do you support this policy proposal as written? And if not, what would you recommend to make it better?”
Also, please note this is not a referendum on fee changes. That’s out of scope for here.
Hollis Kara: All right. Microphones are now open.
Bill Sandiford: All right. Let’s start at the rear microphone with guess who…
Kevin Blumberg: Bob Smith. No.
Kevin Blumberg, coffee addict, the Wire. Cleaning up is awesome in this particular case. The distinctions are becoming less and less.
Based on your - what you’re trying to do with this policy - you’re not disallowing an organization from utilizing some of the differences between ISP and end user requirements, correct?
Robert Seastrom: That’s correct. That is not the intention to keep people from filing reassignments or anything like that.
Kevin Blumberg: So, the reason I’m asking is there are some very, very large differences, especially in v6 policy, when it comes to your initial block size.
And I just want to make sure we’re not going down a path of we’re picking one, because for an enterprise type network getting a 48 or 44 is much simpler. In some cases they may want a 32 or 36 from the ISP side. They’re very different use cases that have historically been there.
They were separated out and we had a lot of work that went around that. So, I just want to make sure we’re not looking at really untangling that because there are benefits to both of these types. It’s just a language change in terms of clarification because there aren’t, correct?
Robert Seastrom: So, there’s intent and then there’s what I can assure you as a shepherd. And those are two entirely different things.
And part of the reason that we are bringing this to the community is that we would really appreciate people — especially people who are good at smoking out corner cases and possibly looking for unintended consequences, and I’m sure you know at least one of them - to look at what we’re proposing here, that’s being proposed here. And think about ways that it could run off the rails.
Kevin Blumberg: So, I support the policy concept. I support what you’re doing here. I think the criticality of Staff and Legal to come back and look at that aspect in terms of, oh, we’re not now - based on what we’re seeing we’re not going to be able to do X or Y, I think is would be very useful information for the community.
Robert Seastrom: This came in relatively late in the cycle, and we couldn’t with other irons in the fire, we couldn’t get Staff and Legal before the conference. But I agree with you the Staff and Legal will be very illuminating.
Kevin Blumberg: Appreciate that. Thank you.
Robert Seastrom: Thank you.
Bill Sandiford: Quick online check.
Robert Seastrom: And please add Kevin Review to the Staff and Legal, if you know what I mean.
Bill Sandiford: Front microphone.
Andrew Dul: Andrew Dul, 8 Continents. I would say I support this because forever we’ve been trying to educate our community about the difference between the word “assignment” and “allocation.” And by removing one of those we no longer have to do that, which I think could be much more of a benefit to everybody.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you, Andrew. All right. Seeing nobody else, indicating nobody else online?
Hollis Kara: Nothing online.
Bill Sandiford: All right. We’ll close this one up as well. Thank you again for your feedback and comments for the AC. Thank you.
Hollis Kara: Thank you, everyone.
All right. And now we have our final policy of the day and of the meeting. Chris Woodfield is on his way up. And he’ll talk about Draft Policy 2022-13: Cleanup of NRPM Section 2.10.
Draft Policy ARIN-2022-13: Clean-up of NRPM Section 2.10
Chris Woodfield: Hello, I’m Chris Woodfield, ARIN AC. This is another fine product of the NRPM Working Group. I am the shepherd along with Alicia Trotman, who is my co-shepherd on this policy.
As said, the problem statement, this proposal continues the work that the ARIN AC, NRPM Cleanup Working Group has undertook to conduct an editorial review of the NRPM. It relates specifically to Section 2.10, which is the definition of the term “end of site,” and the focus of the proposal is to clarify and simplify the wording of that section and implicitly to capture use cases that may not have been contemplated or considered at the time the original language was put in place.
So, to read the policy statement: Replacing the existing text, which is the term “end site” shall mean a single structure or service delivery address, or in the case of a multi-tenant structure, a single tenant within said structure (a single customer location).
With the new text, which is “an endpoint is the smallest non-divisible physical or virtual point in a network requiring IPv6 address space.”
So, the main scope addition, or creep, depending on how you want to look at it, with this definition is that this definition now covers virtual endpoints, virtual networks as well as physical networks, which was not in place. And that does capture new practices, some new Internet drafts that have explicitly recommended the usage of IPv6 blocks internal to hosts for virtual networks and not just physical networks.
Timetable in place is immediate. This proposal is intended to replace ARIN Prop 305, which was editorial proposal, if memory serves, because we are, in effect, changing the definition. This is not an editorial proposal.
So, my questions for the community is, A, one, does the new language sufficiently describe the v6 allocation use cases that currently aren’t captured, such as virtual allocations? Is that language sufficient to capture that use case? Are there use cases for v6 that the proposed language isn’t capturing that it should? And is there a better way to capture this language? Is the term where was it? Is the term “non-divisible physical or virtual point” good enough language or is there a better term that could be used that may be more easily parsed by the community? And with that…
Hollis Kara: All right. Last chance to talk policy in this meeting, guys. Let’s see it.
Bill Sandiford: Looking for online comments for this one, too.
Hollis Kara: Start typing, virtual attendees.
Bill Sandiford: Let’s go to the front microphone.
Andrew Dul: Andrew Dul, 8 Continents. I do not like the new definition. I don’t think it makes things more clear. I have no any idea what it actually does or doesn’t define.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you, Andrew. Rear microphone.
Kevin Blumberg: Kevin Blumberg, The Wire. Could you go back to the policy text?
Bill Sandiford: Go ahead, Kevin.
Kevin Blumberg: Go to the policy text, please.
We go, to sort of echo Andrew, we go from one complex description to another complex description. And the biggest concern I had with the new text is we are adding in new terminology again. “Non-divisible” is not a concept that’s used anywhere in the NRPM and there’s no reason to use it. But, yes, the previous text was “crufty.” The new text, I don’t think gets any closer to “decrufting.” If I’m going to use new terminology I might as well use “crufty.”
I don’t support this. I don’t think this really moves the goal posts anywhere. Thank you.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you, Kevin. Anyone online?
Hollis Kara: Not so far.
Bill Sandiford: Front microphone.
Chris Tacit: Chris Tacit, Tacit Law, ARIN AC. I’m wondering if removal of the word “non-divisible” would clarify this sufficiently for those who find it unclear or if there is some other aspect of this that is still problematic.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you, Chris. Rear microphone.
Lee Howard: Lee Howard, IPv4.Global by Hilco Streambank. I’m sorry, I was trying not to get up, trying to sit on my hands for a couple more.
It looks to me we’re replacing the definition of “end site” with a definition for “endpoint,” without then updating all of the other pointers in the policy manual that refer to the definition of end site.
The term “end site” is used a couple of other places. And if you say this is what an endpoint is, you’ve taken away the definition. Am I mistaken on that?
Bill Sandiford: Chris.
Chris Tacit: I’m not sure it was intended to be endpoint. I actually was puzzled about that. I thought it was supposed to be end site in the new definition as well. I’m actually not sure why it’s endpoint.
Chris Woodfield: You’re correct. That’s probably a typo. I’ll look at the original text on the site to verify that.
Bill Sandiford: All right. Front microphone.
Matt Erculiani: Hello, Matt Erculiani, Google, ARIN 50 Fellow. The NRPM uses the word “host.” Is there any possibility there’s a confusion between what is an endpoint and what is a host?
Bill Sandiford: Good point. Something that the AC can take into consideration. Anything online?
Hollis Kara: We do have one online.
Bill Sandiford: Let’s go to that one.
Beverly Hicks: Apologies, there is no name or affiliation. So, if that person could mark that, I would appreciate it. “This is just a definition. Is the idea to replace the term ‘end site’ throughout the NRPM with ‘endpoint?’ Do we have to think about those changes or if the term is not meant to be replaced, has each of the replacements been thought through? Would like to hear what needs to actually be revised.”
Bill Sandiford: Thank you. Front microphone.
Robert Seastrom: I’d like to respond to both. I think Lee was talking two back and our Fellow’s questions about physical hosts or what have you.
The more cloud you get, the cloudier the answer gets. For people who don’t know what a VPC is, it’s a virtual private cloud. It’s a thing inside of multiple cloud providers.
We’re not supposed to talk about specifics, but since I run some private cloud hosting stuff, I figure I can talk about that. We run Kubernetes inside of on top of Linux inside a container, inside of some other hypervisor, that’s running on a physical box. And it’s unclear how that might break up logically or otherwise.
And I think that this policy is intended to remove that ambiguity and give the freedom to the architect. As such I support this policy as written.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you, R.S. Go ahead Chris.
Chris Woodfield: If memory serves, ARIN has always considered a virtual network as something under the hood. Whether or not it’s physical or virtual, it is a network.
If I’m understanding correctly and again if my memory is correct, I think this is the first time that the word “virtual” has ever been proposed to be put into the NRPM, which has me also wondering where else should there be distinctions between physical and virtual definitions. I can’t think of any offhand, but it’s worth taking a look at.
Bill Sandiford: All right. Rear microphone.
Kevin Blumberg: Kevin Blumberg, The Wire. Sort of to Rob a little bit here, but there are a thousand different ways now to create networks, to create systems, to create cloud environments.
The conceptual problem here is this is not going to stand the test of time. And as a definition that is the problem. There are so many more ways that people are now looking at building networks, especially with IPv6, that are completely counter to the concept of physical and even when you’re using the word “virtual,” you’re sort of overlaying the fact that it’s really just a virtual version of a physical something.
This isn’t a good definition at the outset. I don’t think it’s going to stand the test of time. I think it complicates things. Now, that’s not saying that the old definition is great either, as I said before. But if you’re going to write a definition that’s going to stand the test of time, we really need to reimagine something so that you take into account use cases that may be three years out.
Robert Seastrom: May I respond to that?
Bill Sandiford: Let’s let Chris go first.
Chris Woodfield: I was saying you have a point. Policy currently is agnostic, whether or not a network is physical or virtual. Is that an acceptable status quo either?
Could we just remove the “physical or virtual” from this definition and would that be a more inclusive definition that would stand the test of time?
Kevin Blumberg: So, without doing too much, what’s the word, at the mic, wordsmithing, you’re literally saying, a end site, because that was a typo, is the smallest point in a network requiring IPv6 address space.
Chris Woodfield: In theory, yeah. It’s a simple definition.
Kevin Blumberg: Yeah, I don’t know how much further that gets us.
Bill Sandiford: All right. R.S., you wanted to respond to something?
Robert Seastrom: So, I think that Kevin’s remark about a Policy Proposal not standing the test of time is something that you could apply to just about any Policy Proposal. And I will offer to coauthor 2028-3 to handle any things that don’t stand the test of time.
Bill Sandiford: All right. I think we have two online comments.
Hollis Kara: Yes, we have two online comments. Beverly, do you have those queued up to go?
Beverly Hicks: Yes. Mark Hart, ARIN Fellow. “I’m not entirely sure this clarifies the definition. I’m against it as written.”
And would you like the second one as well?
Hollis Kara: Yes, please.
Bill Sandiford: Yes, please.
Beverly Hicks: The second one is Andy Hadenfeldt, Allo Communications. “Have other RIRs attempted to address the virtual keys? And are there definitions they have found acceptable?”
Bill Sandiford: Good question, something that the AC can look into.
All right, if you haven’t gotten to the queue yet and you wish to please do so now. We’ll close them off shortly. Same with online, get those comments in. But for now, we’ll go to the rear microphone.
Lee Howard: Lee Howard, IPv4.Global by Hilco Streambank. And, Hollis, I agree with you. That’s too long a name.
Hollis Kara: Thank you.
Lee Howard: At the risk of wordsmithing from horseback, the way Kevin was trying to resist doing, I’ll slow down my speaking.
I don’t think we’re talking ‘end site’ isn’t a point in a network. It’s a network. A point in a network is a node or a host. And I don’t think it’s possible to define those either. So, let’s leave them undefined.
I think we’re closing on an end site is the smallest network requiring IPv6 address space. And maybe it’s simply the smallest network, I mean or network of a network, or segment or subnet of a network.
I think that because - I don’t even think that end site here - the definition of a site doesn’t include the need for v6. We’re talking about the structure that’s going to need that’s going to be used later to talk about the requirement for v6.
An end site is the smallest network segment or indivisible network segment. We don’t have to define indivisible. It’s defined. We’ve got a dictionary. It’s the same word. That’s my proposed text.
Bill Sandiford: All right. Closing the queues except for those currently in queue and those online. We’ll go to the rear microphone.
Leo Vegoda: Hi, Leo Vegoda, And Polus, and responding to the question that came in online, also cochair of RIPE’s Address Policy Working Group. We have started a review of IPv6 policy. We have an agenda item at RIPE 85 next week to come up with what we want to do.
But we haven’t touched on this yet. Although there’s a very similar definition in the RIPE policy.
I have a question about all of this proposal.
Have there been people who have come to ARIN and said, “I want some IPv6 address space,” and a misunderstanding over this definition has resulted in them not getting the address space that they need or want? Or is this something that is being done in anticipation of that situation arising?
Chris Woodfield: So, this proposal is coming out of the NRPM Working Group, which is a proactive review of potential - actually it’s the NRPM - so as such I would assume not. If it had, I would say this would be coming out of the Policy Experience Report Working Group instead.
Leo Vegoda: So, it’s entirely possible that there’s not actually a problem to be solved; is that right?
Bill Sandiford: Potentially. Go ahead, Matthew.
Matthew Wilder: As one of the members of the Number Resource Policy Manual, NRPM, Working Group, the origin of this, as mentioned, is not from Policy Experience Report. It was not really anticipating solving some issue that was forthcoming. It was about, we’re looking at Section 2, so Chris was leading at that effort to look at Section 2 and clarify the text, make it more clear for the community.
So, feedback here is welcome and appreciated so we can get closer to what is good for people to understand.
The context of this too is that how it relates to IPv6 address space is the provider assignment unit - I think it’s called - refers to the end site.
So, the purpose of this is really to tell providers, you can have a large block, up to a /48 per site. That’s the context. So, splitting the hairs on this particular policy probably doesn’t do all that much for us, but I think if we can get closer to a good, clean definition, that will be good for everyone.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you. If you’re real quick, Lee.
Lee Howard: Lee Howard again, responding to that point. When people build an IPv6 address plan, they start with how many sites they have, how much address space they give to a site. And they go, “but what’s a site?” That is a common problem that people doing address planning have.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you. Did anything final come in online?
Hollis Kara: Nothing further.
Bill Sandiford: All right. Great. Thank you, everybody, for your comments on this. I know the AC values the feedback and they’ll take it under consideration. Thank you.
Chris Woodfield: Thank you.
ASO Address Council Update
Hollis Kara: All right. So that concludes our policy block. As it is still a bit early and chefs are still working on lunch, we’ll go ahead and move through a few more presentations before we break.
I didn’t want Kevin to feel like his only opportunity today was going to be from the floor. So, we’ve pulled in this presentation so he can give you guys an update on what’s going on with the ASO AC. So please come on up, Kevin Blumberg, the Wire.
Kevin Blumberg: Good afternoon. I’m Kevin Blumberg. I’m the chair of the ASO AC for this year. This ASO AC, we’re going to get into who we are. And let’s go.
So, the ASO AC is the NRO Number Council. In the RIR fora, such as ARIN, we are the Number Resource Council. We then, as one of our duties, sit on the ASO AC.
The ASO AC is within the ICANN fora. So basically we work in that realm, but for your perspective, you should just treat them has the same. It’s the easiest thing. There’s an unbelievable amount of complexity in changing that. This is things that have been MoUed , memorandum of understanding, over the years.
But fundamentally it is the same. When I’m here at this podium, I am the NRO. When I’m in an ICANN meeting, I’m the ASO AC.
The ASO AC is made up of 15 members from five regions, three from each. Two are elected; one is appointed. I am the appointed representative for the ARIN region.
The terms of office are different in the ARIN region. It’s three years for each member. And here’s where it gets interesting. What do we do?
The first thing is we advise the ICANN Board when requested on Internet number questions. We oversee the global (policy) development process. So I want to talk a little bit about global development, global policy.
Global policy is not policies that are between the RIRs. We call that “globally-coordinated policy”, when you have a policy such as the Inter-RIR transfers, having space go between the different regions. That is not a global policy. It is something that is coordinated between the regions themselves.
A global policy is the relationship between the RIRs and IANA/PTI, in regards to how the RIRs give space back because some of the RIRs have given space back, IPv4 space back, and how they get more address space from IANA.
So I believe there was an update yesterday where, was it RIPE and ARIN both have /11 IPv6. That global policy spells out what are the things that need to occur for ARIN to request more space, more AS numbers, et cetera.
That’s what is global policy. We don’t make global policy. We’ve had a lot of discussion here with the ARIN Advisory Council and the ARIN region and they’ve worked on the policy.
The ASO AC is not there to write policy. We are there to help shepherd the policy in the regions, if it’s requested, because there’s many different ways of asking for or submitting policies.
We are there to make sure that the policies are the same, that fundamentally those policies are the same between the five regions. And then we take that through its process and make sure all the steps were done. But we don’t change anything; that’s not our goal.
We appoint two ICANN Board members. They’re on three-year terms. So this is a year off for us. We will have a whole process over about an 8, 9-month period to appoint two ICANN Board members, one each year and then one year off. As well each year we appoint an individual to the ICANN NomCom, which seats a number of the ICANN Board members.
We meet monthly via Zoom. And that has been throughout the many years now. With COVID we’ve been virtual since the beginning. And then face to face annually. We’ve actually got our first face-to-face meeting. Normally, it would be the first ICANN meeting of the year was when the ASO AC would meet. We’re actually going to be meeting at RIPE in Belgrade next week for the first time in, I think, three years now.
Thank you, by the way, to RIPE for providing us some space and power and Zoom and hospitality. We appreciate it.
So the members of the ASO AC. We’ve got myself in the ARIN region as the Chair, Mike Silber from AFRINIC and Hervé Clément from the RIPE region as Vice Chairs. And you can see each of the little stars next to a person’s name. It means that they are the appointed versus the elected position. The terms are there as well.
We currently have one vacancy in the AFRINIC region. I believe Mr. Curran had an update about that. Once they’re able to seat somebody they will, but for now it’s currently vacant.
So we have something called PPFT. Everybody loves acronyms. What’s even worse is it’s a tongue twister when you try to say it. It’s the Policy Proposal Facilitator Team. If you say that five times fast, you get an award.
Each region has somebody who follows the respective Mailing Lists and respective Policy Development Processes in that region.
They are there to identify when a policy may be global in nature. They will report that back to the ASO AC, whether there is some confusion, if it’s a policy global or globally coordinated. They’re there to just track and report back to the ASO AC. So each region has one person.
If you have any questions related to that, you could ask the PPFT member from that region. How would I do this or how would how does this look from a global policy perspective?
Transparency is very important. We had a review of the ASO, I guess it was about six years ago now. And there’s one coming up at a certain point. And transparency, getting things out in the open, was very important. It’s very easy to fall back on, we’ll just leave it on a mailing list, and then you’ve got a private mailing list and more and more things over time just happen to go to that direction because it’s just easy.
And it actually is hard to be transparent. And what I mean by that is you have to actively make sure that you identify when something is not when you have to have a closed meeting. But otherwise you really want to keep things open. And you have to work at that. And that takes time and patience.
So our face-to-face meeting is open to observers. We will open up the Zoom, allow remote observation; not participation, but observation. Our discuss list is open.
Our teleconferences are now fully open as well. We do a transparency review each year. It’s on our website. And if there’s anything that you believe that we should be documenting or that we haven’t documented well enough, please, by all means, ask and that is an important part for us.
So as far as the Board members that we’ve appointed, Christian Kaufmann is the latest, seat 10, that we just wrapped up earlier this year. And he goes until 2025. And Alan Barrett is from last year, seat 9. And, again, we can’t have, I should’ve talked about this. We try to keep regionally separated as much as possible. What I mean by that is, the Chair cannot sit in the same region as the Vice Chair, et cetera. So if you noticed, every Vice Chair was from a different region.
The same applies to our two appointments. They cannot be from the same region. So that does happen. And Brajesh Jain is our current ICANN NomCom appointment.
RIR meetings, that’s just here for informational purposes. All of the ones.
And any questions about the ASO? We have a fairly in-depth website, ASO.ICANN.org. You’re welcome to peruse the hundreds of documents. It’s a lot more mobile friendly now so you can do it on your phones. If you do have any questions, by all means, the mics are open, or if not we’ll see you at the next meeting.
Hollis Kara: Any questions for Kevin?
Kevin Blumberg: Want me to go down there?
Hollis Kara: I mean, you could. That would be an option. I think we’re good. Thank you so much, Kevin.
Kevin Blumberg: Wait.
Richard Jimmerson: I do not think it is the right thing to do to leave Kevin without a question.
Hollis Kara: I think you’re right. Thank you, Richard.
Richard Jimmerson: He’s been sitting on the stage, so I just wanted to stand in and ask a question. It may have been covered in the slide, so I’ll just make it an easy question.
I know that the NRO NC, ASO AC selects Board members for the ICANN board. We’ve got the two seats. For next year in 2023, is that with a skip year for the ASO AC or is there a seat next year for us?
Kevin Blumberg: No, it’s a skip year. What we’re doing, one of our primary goals in Serbia at the RIPE meeting is to actually review all the procedures related to appointments because during a period when you’re actually looking at that process, you don’t want to be changing the procedures during it. So we’re going to use this skip year as a way of reviewing our procedures.
Richard Jimmerson: Excellent, and then you would use those updated procedures in 2024?
Kevin Blumberg: Exactly.
Lee Howard: Lee Howard, IPv4.Global by Hilco Streambank. I know that there are two elected and one appointed member from the region. When are the elections for the elected ASO AC members?
Kevin Blumberg: The elections are currently open. The NRO has, the ARIN region, two candidates, their bios and information. And I believe they are both in the room or nearby if anybody has any questions. And look forward to working with them — one of them.
Lee Howard: Worth repeating, thanks.
Hollis Kara: Thank you. Thanks, Kevin.
Kevin Blumberg: Thank you.
Hollis Kara: We’re going to press ahead and try to wrap up the meeting before we break for lunch. So next up we’ll have Bill Sandiford to give a Board of Trustees Report.
Board of Trustees Report
Bill Sandiford: All right. The Board of Trustees activity report. Your Board has been very busy over the course of the last year. We put some slides together and some different headings to take you through some of the things that we’ve been up to.
In the fun-ancial department get it Nancy?
(Laughter.) We’ve recently adopted the auditor’s report. We’ve dealt with the audit financial statements, typical things that need to get done every year.
We reviewed and take a look at and adopted the Finance Committee Charter for the year. For those of you that are ever looking for some nice, light reading when you have nothing better to do, you can take a look at our 990s, which we take care of every year, as well.
Could I get the notes thing on the righthand side here again. It’s disappeared. I had some notes. I just noticed the screens have changed and I don’t have my notes, my speaker notes.
We approved some funding recommendation grants which with without my notes, if I recall correctly, we had one related around RPKI and one that was a DNS-related project and a third one, which is slipping me without the notes.
There’s my notes. All right. Three grants helping, yes, NTP. NTP, RPKI, and DNS. We adopted a new version of the RSA which hadn’t been done in a while.
Basically simplifying Section 7. Something that was brought to us by the community, simplify Section 7. So that was taken care of. Last but certainly not least we put in place ending the legacy fee cap waiver or legacy fee cap as of December 31st, 2023, for new parties to the LRSA and new parts to the LRSA only. Those of you who already have LRSAs with those provisions in place, they will remain in place.
We just feel that based on community feedback it’s time to end the fee cap. And we want to give a little bit of runway for those organizations that are out there who still want to do so to get it done before it goes away.
But any new LRSA signings after December 31st, 2023, will not have the benefits of the same legacy fee cap.
Under the things that we did with regards to, or things that we do with regards to our fiduciary responsibility, a lot of standards stuff here. We adopt the minutes of our meetings. We review the Advisory Council standing Rules of Order and we’ve adopted them as revised when the Advisory Council comes to us looking for updates to their standing rules.
We updated the bylaws to include increasing the size of the Board of Trustees, something that management and the CEO in particular was looking for very good reason for some time and finally came through to fruition this year.
Also based on community feedback, there was a comprehensive review of election processes done by some of our governance groups, Nancy - sorry, Catherine, Peter and remind me of the third one, Catherine - Nancy, right?
And this group, guys, I can’t say enough for a lot of the work that this group has done for the Board and for you, the members, over the last couple of years.
I mean, this was an in-depth, comprehensive review of the governance of our organization. And it’s really been fantastic, the work that has come out of this group. And one of it was some much-needed overhauls to our election processes, which you’re seeing for the first time in this year’s election cycle.
That included updating the Nomination Committee’s charter and adopting the Board Guidance Letter with regards to the Nomination Committee and the Nominee Questionnaire.
Consultations performed. We directed the CEO to conduct a community consultation on a recommended PDP, recommended revisions to the PDP. That’s been sent to him. And finally we approved the results of the discussion mailing list consultation that was conducted.
Of course we ratified policies that have gone through the Policy Development Process and come up to us from the community and the AC. So there’s several policies here that have been ratified over the course of the last year.
And that is all that I have for you today. I’m happy to take any questions and also invite John to come on up here and join me for what will become Open Microphone.
Hollis Kara: We did have one question that we didn’t see a hand raised in virtual on previous presentation. So wanted to give that participant an opportunity to ask their question.
Bill Sandiford: So that was for Kevin’s presentation?
Hollis Kara: I think maybe. I’m not sure. Let’s find out.
Beverly Hicks: Nada, you should be able to unmute yourself now.
Nada Alwadi: Hi, everyone. I had just had a quick question. I don’t know if you can hear me.
Bill Sandiford: We sure can hear you.
Nada Alwadi: Okay. So Kevin, thank you so much for your presentation. I was actually interested in the organization, the global organization’s global policy organizations under your organization.
So you have African APNIC, all these acronyms. I was wondering if they collaborate and in what platform. And also there are a lot of meetings that all of these regional organizations have. They have meetings and they have, I guess, some kind of arrangement.
So I wonder how does that fit within the scope of your organization?
Bill Sandiford: All right. So I’m going to ask if you can just repeat the beginning part of your question again because Kevin had to step out of the room for half a second, and he’s now returned and he’s standing at the microphone ready to answer your question.
Kevin, what you missed when you stepped out of the room was that we had a late inbound question to your previous presentation. So this is that question. And you only came in on the back half of it. If we could just get the question for Kevin repeated, he’s here and ready for you now.
Nada Alwadi: Sure. Hi, Kevin. Thank you so much for your presentation. I am an ARIN fellow. And I’m a Ph.D. student studying Internet governance. And I was very interested in, when you mentioned the members in your organization, the global members in your organization, where they fit. So you have the African organization, different regional organizations within the scope of what you guys are doing.
So my question is, where can I find information about how they collaborate and the umbrella, the policies that somehow guides this collaboration within the scope of your work?
And they do have regional meetings. I wonder where these meetings fit within also the plan, within your organization. Thank you.
Kevin Blumberg: Great question. Thank you. Kevin Blumberg, ASO AC. I’ll say it slowly.
ASO.ICANN.org has procedures, has meeting minutes, has all of the documents going back years. They’re all there. And they’ve recently been cleaned up to make it easier to find information.
All of the supporting documents between things like the memorandum of understandings, et cetera, links to the ICANN bylaws, et cetera, where it shows what we do are all on that website.
Again, we don’t do regional policy. It’s only global policy. And to be honest, thankfully, we haven’t done any global policy in a number of years.
The last request for our group was a verification in regards to Autonomous System Numbers, which was, I believe, five or six years ago. A little bit of COVID brain in terms of the number of years it’s been, but it’s been quite a while.
The main part for our group, which is the 15 members again, three from each region, is to be ready to monitor when there is global policy, to be available to our communities and constituencies for that purpose. But we rarely need to touch this because it’s a very specific function that we work with. Thank you.
John Curran: To follow up, just for clarity. So the ASO AC is also referred to as the NRO Number Council. As the group that composes the ASO AC, when it’s working in the ICANN structure, is actually the Number Council inside the Number Resource Organization, the NRO.
So overall coordination between the RIRs on a global basis is handled by the NRO. And that includes operational coordination and the NRO Internet Number Resource Status Report you saw reporting across the status of the numbers across all the RIRs. And then when it comes to the specific functions and the collaboration with ICANN, which includes the appointment of Directors and the development of global policy, those are handled by the NRO Number Council, which in ICANN is called the ASO, the Address Supporting Organization, AC Advisory Council.
So overall coordination through the NRO and the functions that Kevin reported on is the election of Directors and the development of global policy. Thanks.
Bill Sandiford: All right. Thank you for your question.
<I feel like there was more said between this point and the Open Mic. Maybe it wasn’t particularly substantial?>
Bill Sandiford: So we are now at the Open Microphone section of the day, which for those of you who aren’t aware will be the last thing we do before closing off the meeting. So the microphones are open for those of you in the room or online.
And rear microphone.
Leif Sawyer: Leif Sawyer, ARIN Advisory Council Chair. On behalf of our Advisory Council and myself, I wanted to thank Catherine Middleton for her work on the Board.
Just something simple. Thank you.
Bill Sandiford: Thank you. All right. Not seeing anybody else coming to the microphones.
Hollis Kara: Nothing online.
Bill Sandiford: All right, before we go and, John, before you do the closing ceremonies, there was a couple things I wanted to say briefly.
One of them is those of you that have been with us for a while will recall that a couple meetings ago we really changed the format of how we did these meetings. You all remember the days of the table up on stage and AC members, Board members sitting at the head table and heads in their laptops.
And we got a lot of feedback over the years. Maybe there was a better way. And we’ve switched the format up. And we’re really interested in your feedback on it going forward. Personally from my standpoint I think it’s been fantastic. We really owe a credit to that to the team.
You know, those who used to be volunteers that would have to sit up at the head table for half a day here or a day there, would be, like, I’ve got to sit up there. What if I have to do something?
And here we’ve got Hollis, who’s been here the whole time, never a chance to take a break, never a chance to leave the room. Same with Beverly and the entire tech team at the back.
I, on behalf of the Board and I hope on behalf of everyone here, would like to hear you give it up for the entire team that’s made this meeting go off without a hitch.
Hollis Kara: Thank you very much.
Bill Sandiford: And as has been mentioned in some of the slides already, we have three departing members from the Advisory Council, who are 100 percent not going to be back with us.
We have Catherine Middleton, who has been an extremely valuable member of the Board, who is not returning and not standing for election. And, Catherine, stand up for me, will you, please.
Catherine has been really instrumental in leading a lot of our governance reform. And she’s going to be sorely missed by her colleagues on the Board and I know the community as a whole.
And I’d be remiss to not mention, if I’m not mistaken, that Martin Hannigan is no longer standing with us for the NRO Number Council, ASO AC. And Martin has been a longtime volunteer, as well, too. I’d like to hear a round of applause for Martin, and, in fact, all of our departing volunteers.
All right. John, I’ll leave it to you to bring the curtain down.
John Curran: All right, thank you, everyone.
First, one more round of applause for our sponsors, Zayo, Google, and IPv4.Global Hilco.
These sponsors are important. They help defray the meeting costs and help keep your costs down.
Okay. ARIN 51, let’s start talking about it. Save the date. We’ll be in Tampa, Florida, in April 2023, at the Grand Hyatt Tampa Bay. Pencil in the date, 16th through the 19th April. We’ll see you all in Tampa. That’s going to be wonderful.
We’re looking for feedback, folks. Tell us how we did. You have the opportunity to give us feedback. Complete the meeting survey. There’s a link. Feel free to do that and get a chance to win an iPad Air.
Reminder, we’re in election season and elections are open. They remain open until the 28th, this Friday, 28 October. Voting in the elections is open. If you’re a voting contact, you’ll log in to ARIN Online. You’ll see a “vote now” button.
There’s an election help desk in Salon 3, right next door, but also at any time, elections@ARIN.net.
That’s actually getting towards the end. I’d just like to say I’m glad you all came out to Hollywood. You are our stars, the ARIN members. Very happy to have you here.
Look forward to seeing you all in Tampa. Lunch is outside. Thank you, everyone. This ends the meeting.
[Meeting adjourned 11:55]