Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 19 November 2015 [Archived]

OUT OF DATE?

Here in the Vault, information is published in its final form and then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

Dan Alexander, Chair (DA)
Cathy Aronson (CA)
Kevin Blumberg, Vice Chair (KB)
Owen DeLong (OD)
David Farmer (DF)
David Huberman (DH)
Tina Morris (TM)
Leif Sawyer (LS)
John Springer (JS)
Chris Tacit (CT)

Scribe:

Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
John Curran, President & CEO
Nate Davis, COO
Richard Jimmerson, (RJ) CIO & Interim Director, Registration Services

ARIN General Counsel

Stephen M. Ryan

Observer

Amy Potter, (AP) 2016 Member-Elect

Regrets

Andrew Dul, Einar Bohlin, Scott Leibrand, Milton Mueller, Rob Seastrom

Absent

Heather Schiller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted. He welcomed 2016 member-elect AC member Amy Potter to the call as an observer.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments. He noted that although there was quorum to conduct AC business, items 4 and 7 on the agenda required two-thirds of the vote of the AC, which would require 10 affirmative votes. At this time there were 9 AC members on the call. Noting that DF was not on the call at this time, the Chair stated these items would be moved to the end of the agenda to allow time for DF to join the call. The Chair also stated that item 8 would be moved to the end of the agenda.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 09 October 2015, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments

Discussed below.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients)

CA stated at that she and CT were revising the text to incorporate the community’s feedback; and, they would be sending it to the AC for review within the next week. CT stated he and CA would also consult with the authors on the revisions. They plan to present it at the next Public Policy Consultation (PPC) during the NANOG meeting in February.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-day Utilization Requirement in End-user IPv4 Policy

LS stated that he had not spoken with DF on the text and there had been no change. He believed DF was attempting to foster more discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), as the policy was not gaining visibility. It was not ready to move forward at this time. He stated it could be presented at the PPC, and that he would contact DF to discuss the matter.

7. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4: Modify Section 8.2 to Better Reflect How ARIN Handles Reorganizations

Discussed below.

8. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out-of-Region Use

Discussed below.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-National Networks

KB stated that this policy was on hold as they worked on 2015-5. He stated there was ambiguity in the text for 2015-6, and based on the ARIN 37 meeting, he will hold off working on it until there is a better sense on the text for 2015-5. He stated he did not intend on any presentation at the next PPC. Once 2015-5 has had a chance to be worked on with community then 2015-6 will be addressed.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified Requirements for Demonstrated Need for IPv4 Transfers

There were no AC shepherds for this policy on the call at this time for discussion.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment Records for IPv4 End-Users

CT stated he had not received feedback since the meeting in Montreal, and would be working with author and OD on revising the text to move it forward at the next AC meeting. He intended to present the policy at the next PPC.

12. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating Needs-Based Evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 Transfers of IPv4 Netblocks

LS stated that the author was looking at providing updated text based on community feedback received at ARIN 37, however LS has not received it yet.

13. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove Transfer Language Which Only Applied Pre-Exhaustion of IPv4 Pool

There were no AC shepherds for this policy on the call at this time for discussion.

The Chair referred to items 4, 7, and 8 at this time. With regard to items 4 and 7 (Draft Policy 2015-1 and Draft Policy 2015-4), the Chair noted that these policies could not have a motion moved for Board adoption at this time due to not having 10 members of the AC in attendance (or two-thirds of the vote of the AC). He suggested that these two policies be discussed at the next AC teleconference in December, or scheduling an earlier teleconference if the AC desired.

The Chair addressed item 8 at this time.

8. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out-of-Region Use

The Chair stated that this policy would revert to Draft Policy status due to the Policy Development Process (PDP) guidelines by the AC next meeting in December. He asked the AC if they believed there was consensus at ARIN 37, and adequate feedback, to move the policy forward at this time.

TM stated that she believed that the community was very much in support during ARIN 37.

JS supported holding an interim teleconference to address items 4 and 7. He agreed with TM that this policy (2015-5) did gain support.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out-of-Region Use’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. TM stated that most of the questions the community posed were answered, and that any negativity was in regard to the overall concept (i.e., global policy vs. regional policy), which was out of the AC’s control. She noted that at the ARIN 37 meeting this policy had unanimous consent, and that the lunch table discussions were very positive. OD agreed.

The Chair asked if the AC noted any objections from the community during ARIN 37. TM stated she had not observed any objections.

The motion carried with all in favor (9 in attendance) via roll call.

The Chair stated that he did not believe a special meeting would be needed for items 4 or 7, and that they could be moved for Board adoption at the AC’s next regularly scheduled meeting in December, as it was within the guidelines of the PDP. He asked if anyone objected.

KB pointed out that the AC’s December teleconference is scheduled for December 17, and many folks may be on vacation. He suggested an informal roll call, via e-mail, to see if the AC would have the 10 needed members on the teleconference (two-thirds of the vote) to make sure there was quorum for moving these policies forward for adoption.

The President stated that per the Bylaws there was one more option for the to AC could take. They could take an action without a meeting via email but only if all 15 members of the AC acknowledged consent to have an action without a meeting. If all 15 members consented, then they could vote on the 2 policies via email with a two-thirds affirmative vote.

The Chair did not believe that was necessary. He agreed with KB’s approach of finding out, via email, which members would be in attendance on the December teleconference. Then, that meeting could be moved up to an earlier date in December if needed. The Chair stated he would post this to the AC’s list.

***Per the ARIN Policy Development Process, RDP 2015-5 should not have been advanced to Last Call, as it had not been to a public consultation as a Recommended Draft Policy.

The motion above was improper at the time, and thus is null and void.***

14. NANOG / ARIN PPC Discussion

The Chair stated that an ARIN PPC during the NANOG meeting next February would be held. He stated that he would submit a request to NANOG’s program committee for a time slot. He would keep the AC apprised of this item.

The Chair asked if there were any questions. OD asked if anything had been resolved with regard to the community feedback on the problematic nature of the PPCs? The Chair stated that no conclusions had been reached that would change the current course, which was to leverage the PPCs, as the AC saw fit, to discuss proposals on the AC’s docket.

OD stated that he did not disagree, but that he was concerned because what was stated to the community during ARIN 37 was that the AC was going to do something different to fix it and he did not see that the AC was doing anything. The Chair asked OD to clarify what it was that needed fixing. The Chair recalled that there were issues raised regarding formatting the conversations, if the PPC should exist at all, if the PPC should be used to advance proposals, etc.

OD stated that rather than giving specific feedback on those items, what was said at the open microphone session was that we were going to do something about the PPCs, but we did not specify what, or what issues we would address, or what we would change. OD’s concern was that the AC has not resolving anything. The Chair asked if OD would like the AC to send a statement to mailing list, or in another venue? OD stated that if the AC promised to address concerns raised, then it needed to come to a conclusion and then address the concerns.

KB stated that he recalled that there was some discussion post-ARIN 37. There were two aspects he personally recognized: 1) The format of the PPC is rigid inside of the ARIN PDP, which the AC does not control. If the AC holds a PPC, unless the PDP changes, the PPC is there for specific items. 2) A lot of discussion took place regarding improving the PPC’s format, for example, not presenting too many proposals, and improving the presentation format and PPC participation. Since then, the AC is extremely limited on what it can and cannot do. He asked OD if that helped him.

OD stated that KB’s comments did help, but a concern expressed was that the full AC does not attend the PPCs, and there was some talk of changing that.

The President stated that he recalled a concern about not holding a PPC when there is a joint ARIN / NANOG meeting and believed that made sense since the policies would be discussed at the ARIN meeting. He pointed out that the AC could inform the community that it did not intend to hold them in a joint meeting venue. He noted that it is up to the AC to decide on what policies are presented during an ARIN PPC. While it is important for the AC to consider community feedback, it is ultimately for the AC to decide how to use the PPC’s, as the AC was elected by the community to do a job, and the PPC is a tool for the AC to use as they see fit so long as it confirms to the PDP (Policy Development Process).

The Chair stated that KB had made a good point. A PPC is not outreach. The primary function of a PPC is its role in the PDP. He noted that he had exchanged a number of emails with folks on this topic and the Chair believed the AC was making progress. He suggested discussing it further on AC’s list with regard to what the AC could do as a group for messaging to the community. OD agreed.

DF joined at this time (4:36 pm EST). In light of this, OD suggested that the AC consider items 4 and 7, since there were now 10 AC members in attendance to vote on the two policies. The Chair agreed.

The Chair acknowledged that JS had been in the queue for the PPC discussion and asked for his thoughts.

JS requested better attention toward managing the queue as his comments related to previous comments OD had made but believed they were now moot. The Chair acknowledged his request, and asked if he had thoughts he still wanted to share.

JS stated that OD’s concerns involved repeated use of term ‘we’. JS did not recall ‘we’ as meaning the AC committed the AC to doing anything. OD stated that he recalled the Chair was at the microphone during the end the open microphone session at ARIN 37, and that the words “we’re going to fix this” were used. He stated that if he recalled this incorrectly, he apologized.

JS stated that he did not object to making a statement to the community, but the AC should put it on the agenda and look at what is asked of them. The Chair stated that if we say we are doing something as a group, it would come from me as the Chair. He reiterated this matter would be further discussed on the AC’s list.

Per OD’s suggestion, the Chair stated that items 4 and 7 would now be discussed.

4. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. DH stated that since day one this policy has been uncontroversial, well accepted, clear and concise. He believed it was ready for Board adoption.

The President stated that the motion was in order, and the policy had gone through last call, which ended on 28 October 2015. He reminded the AC that it needed an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the full AC (i.e., 10 AC members), in order to move forward.

The motion carried with all in favor (10 AC members) via roll call vote.

7. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4: Modify Section 8.2 to Better Reflect How ARIN Handles Reorganizations

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4: Modify Section 8.2 to Better Reflect How ARIN Handles Reorganizations’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated that this policy was widely supported by the community. Although an editorial change, some were concerned about processing it in the normal manner, so the AC is processing it through Board adoption. He believed it was ready.

The Chair noted that this policy had been presented at ARIN 37, and went through the last call period ending on 28 October 2015. There were no comments during the last call period. The President stated that this action also required an affirmative vote of 10 AC members in order to move forward.

The motion carried with all in favor (10 AC members) via roll call vote.

The Chair resumed the agenda in its remaining order.

15. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

AC January 2016 Face-to-Face Meeting. The President stated that, per the AC’s request, the location of the AC’s January face-to-face meeting had been changed from Dulles, VA to Seattle, WA. The AC thanked the President for doing so.
Miscellaneous Business. CT and the rest of the AC congratulated the Chair on his upcoming wedding. OD wished everyone a Happy Thanksgiving.

16. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:54 p.m. EST. JS moved to adjourn, seconded by OD. The meeting adjourned with no objections.