Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 19 May 2016 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees:

• Dan Alexander, Chair (DA)
• Kevin Blumberg, Vice Chair (KB)
• Cathy Aronson (CA)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• David Farmer (DF)
• David Huberman (DH)
• Scott Leibrand (SL)
• Amy Potter (AP)
• Leif Sawyer (LS)
• John Springer (JS)
• Chris Tacit (CT)

Scribe:

• Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
• Einar Bohlin (EB), Government Affairs and Public Policy Analyst
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis (ND), COO
• Susan Hamlin (SH), Dir. Communications & Member Services
• Sean Hopkins, Policy Analyst
• Richard Jimmerson (RJ), CIO & Acting Director, Registration Services

ARIN General Counsel

• Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.

Absent:

• Tina Morris, Milton Mueller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

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

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 20 April 2016, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients)’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. CT stated that there was much support at the Public Policy Consultation (PPC) and at ARIN 37. A conformance statement was performed, and there was sufficient support to move it forward. JS supported the motion. KB also supported the motion.

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

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

The Chair reviewed the Policy Development Process (PDP) timeline on the status of this policy to the AC. DF stated that while it was believed there was consensus, there has been continued discussion regarding the last call, some of it relevant and to the point of the last call. He stated that therefore, in an abundance of caution, he would move to return ARIN-2015-3 for an extended last call through June 13th, 2016. He asked for the AC’s opinions.

JS asked DF for a summary of the PPML discussion since moving to last call. DF stated that the last few comments with regard to transfer market were irrelevant to the policy itself, and did not provide any additional clarity. Although important issues, they were not relevant to this discussion. He believed authors Jason Schiller and Alyssa Moore’s comments were relevant; however, he wished additional time for consideration. This was his reason for suggesting an extended last call. He stated he could be convinced to advance the policy if others believed it should be advanced.

KB believed the bulk of Public Policy Mailing List’s (PPML) discussion was a re-visitation of comments and concerns raised at ARIN 37, and that those concerns have been addressed by staff, or by the community at ARIN 37. He did not see continuing the discussion by extending the last call period. He supported moving it forward since nothing new has come to light in a negative manner.

OD agreed with KB, and noted the points Jason Schiller had raised were the same ones as prior to the last call.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL agreed with OD, and supported the motion. He believed the consensus gained from ARIN 37 stood.

DF stated that KB had made good points, and that he supported the motion made. He thanked the AC for their comments.

KB asked if there were any AC members opposed, as the full AC was not in attendance, to gauge a sense of support on the matter. There were no objections raised.

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

The Chair thanked DF for his work on the policy and asked him to submit a statement to the AC list regarding rationale for sending 2015-3 to the Board of Trustees.

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

The Chair stated that as neither policy shepherd was in attendance, this draft policy would be discussed at the next AC meeting.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy

AD stated that he had sent a message to the PPML on the proposed draft revisions, based on community comments gained from ARIN 37. It was not clear if the new text was supported at this time and he would watch for consensus. AP agreed, stating she would like to give the draft policy more time for comments from the community.

OD stated that support was seen early on, but even supporters were not able to justify the need and it would be nice to identify the need.

DH did not believe the suggested change met the technically sound criterion, stating that a case for 8.3 transfers out of the reserved pool has not been shown thus far and conducting them out of this block was not appropriate.

KB believed the text as is was the right way to move forward, and there was no pressure with regard to a deadline. He stated he would like to get it moving forward so that the community knows what they are discussing; and would like to see that happen sooner rather than later. He did support giving it time at this point.

SL stated that the change was not necessary to move it forward, however, supported it moving forward, if others wanted to do so. He suggested sending it to staff and legal for review as currently written. OD supported SL’s suggestion, so that it could be moved to recommended draft status at the next AC meeting.

8. ARIN-Prop-227: Change Timeframes for All IPv4 Requests to 24 Months

SL stated that the revision was very straightforward as was the problem statement. Given the simplicity, a motion to accept on to docket would be acceptable.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-227: Change Timeframes for All IPv4 Requests to 24 Months’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. KB stated that there were a number of timelines in IPv4 policy. He recommended title be changed to remove the word ‘all’. He stated that we are changing only what is used in the majority of policy, not relative to all timeframes that were possible. He did not believe it was an accurate title. He did support the motion. The Chair acknowledged his comment.

JS agreed with KB, but noted additionally that the title did not affect the policy itself. SL stated he supported removing the word ‘all’ from the title.

OD pointed out that the title says ‘all IPv4 requests’, and that there are other timelines not related to IPv4 requests. Therefore, he believed it did match the timelines for requests, but he was agreeable with removing the word ‘all’.

Counsel stated, as general guidance, words like ‘all’ and ’never’ was not good practice unless the term was totally accurate, and that any date changes be specified in the policy.

OD pointed out that the concern was only in the title, and that the policy text conformed.

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

9. ARIN-Prop-228: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers

DH stated that he and OD reviewed the text, and had communicated with the authors - SL and Jason Schiller. He noted it was an interesting proposal text because it aimed to allow to double the size of holdings with no needs test up to a /16 or /12. Those are very different barriers. He discussed this with authors, and the intent is for us to bring the text as is to community with the ‘and/or’ text in it, and let them decide where the limit should be. He believed it was a viable policy to add to the AC’s docket.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-228: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers’ as a Draft Policy.”

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

10. ARIN-Prop-229: Transfers for New Entrants

JS stated that there was a conditional statement in the proposal that depended on the outcome of 2015-3, which was passed earlier in this meeting. He stated he would request that the authors remove the conditional text from the proposal. He noted that timing could be an issue, as 2015-3 would need to be adopted by the Board first.

KB stated that the problem statement was clear and could be revised once the disposition of 2015-3 was determined.

JS stated that he preferred the authors cleaned up the text. OD stated that the proposal as written is clear and it would be easy enough to revise the text. At the time it was written, the outcome of 2015-3 was unknown. We don’t know with certainty that the Board will adopt it. I believe keeping it as is, is acceptable.

DF stated that it was clear enough to him where 2015-3 was headed and that he was hoping it would be as clear as possible when it went to the community. He proposed holding off on this proposal, and he and JS would work with the authors. It could be moved forward at the AC’s June meeting.

As a point of Order, OD asked if the AC could stall putting it on the docket, as he believed the timeline was short, per the PDP. The Chair explained that there was no deadline for adding it to the docket. He stated that 60 days after submission it is actionable by petition. The AC had time.

SL pointed out there was no ‘condition’. This was a revision to be made. He was concerned with JS’s characterization of policy being undefined. He agreed with DF to revise the text prior to sending it to the community; and he would be happy to edit the text, as one of the authors. He noted that if the AC accepted it onto their docket, the original text would be posted to the PPML. He preferred DF’s approach, waiting until the next AC meeting in June.

OD asked if the Board would be meeting between now and June to take action on 2015-3. The COO stated that the Board would be meeting tomorrow and considering 2015-3.

The Chair stated that the proposal would be addressed at the next AC meeting.

11. Update “Return” Language for Section 8.2 M&A Transfers

In accordance with Policy Development Process (PDP) section 3.1, a 30-day ‘Notice of Intent’ to make a proposed editorial update was posted to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) on 24 March 2016, for review by the ARIN community. The review period closed on 23 April 2016.

The Chair asked for the number of replies to the notice of intent from the community. AD stated there were no replies. The Chair therefore asked the AC if they believed the editorial changes should be recommended to the Board.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends the proposed editorial update to the Number Resource Policy Manual of “Return” Language for Section 8.2 M&A Transfers, to the ARIN Board of Trustees for its review and concurrence.”

Counsel left the call at this time (4:59 p.m. EDT).

The Chair called for discussion. There were no further comments.

The motion carried with all in favor.

12. Any Other Business

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

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:00 p.m. EDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by JS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.