Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 05 April 2017 [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OUT OF DATE?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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.
New Orleans, Louisiana
Advisory Council Attendees
- Dan Alexander, Chair (DA)
- Tina Morris, Vice Chair (TM)
- Owen DeLong (OD)
- Andrew Dul (AD)
- David Farmer (DF)
- David Huberman (DH)
- Alyssa Moore (AM)
- Amy Potter (AP)
- Joe Provo (JP)
- Leif Sawyer (LS)
- Rob Seastrom (RS)
- John Springer (JS)
- Chris Tacit (CT)
- Alison Wood (AW)
- Chris Woodfield (CW)
- Sean Hopkins
- Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
- John Curran, President & CEO
- Nate Davis (ND), COO
- Sean Hopkins, (SHo) Policy Analyst
- John Sweeting (JSw), Senior Dir., Registration Services
ARIN General Counsel
- Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.
ARIN Board Observers
- Paul Andersen, ARIN Board Chair
- Patrick Gilmore, Trustee
The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:12 p.m. CDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed the AC and Board members to the meeting.
2. Agenda Review
The Chair reviewed the Agenda with the Council and called for any comments. There were no comments.
3. Approval of the Minutes
It was moved by OD, and seconded by LS, that:
“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 16 March 2017, as written.”
The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.
The motion carried with no objections.
4. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
DH stated that the policy was moved to Recommended Draft Policy (RDP) status on 21 February 2017; and, since then there had been no opposition and the meeting room at ARIN 39 showed a 60 to one ratio in support.
It was moved by DH and seconded by OD, that:
“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers’ to Last Call.”
The Chair called for discussion. The Chair stated for clarification, that there were 140 people in the meeting room and 4 remote participants. There were 50 votes in favor, and 1 against. The Chair called for any comments or objections to this information. There were none.
The Chair asked AD why he was against the policy. AD stated that it was because there was a new policy that had just went in, and it was already being modified. It might be a rushed decision, but there were no major concerns about it.
OD stated that the reality is that the current policy moved forward faster to create Section 8.5 of the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). The policy just happened to be ahead, and he believed it would be a disservice to hold RDP 2016-3 back. AD replied that it was not his intent to hold it back.
DF stated that he viewed this policy as part of the previous transfer policies, as it was considered alongside of them. He believed the batch of policies could have been planned better, but it has to be dealt with as it is.
The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.
5. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement
CT stated that this policy had an interesting history, as there had been some opposition on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), and that some folks felt that the current information was useful and should not be removed. Hence there is no clear direction. The problem statement had to do with staff workload and the possibility of POC validation e-mails being seen as spam. CT was unclear that this policy was a good solution, as written. His inclination was to abandon it, but he wanted Council’s view first, to see if there was enough scope in the problem statement to allow the policy to move forward.
DF encouraged the AC not to hastily dispose of this draft policy. He believed that the AC needed as much community input on the issue as possible; and, that it should be left as a draft policy to be further presented and discussed at a Public Policy Consultation (PPC).
It was moved by OD, and seconded by DH, that:
“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2016-8: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement’.”
The Chair called for discussion. TM stated that she did not believe that this motion was contributing to anything helpful, but it brought to light things that may help the AC draft new language. She noted that law enforcement agencies do not appear to be concerned about indirect POC validity. She suggested that if that changes, then forcing them to validate upon creation would be helpful. LS pointed out that if the POC was removed from WhoIs, it would still remain in WhoWas.
OD believed that eliminating the indirect requirement may be useful, but doing so without also removing the indirect POC requirement might be a disservice to some organizations. Some indirect POCs are created without the ISP’s knowledge, which creates cleanup work. It is not straightforward - as org recovery, POC linking, and other work has to occur. It could make the database corrupt in the end. RS concurred with OD’s thoughts.
The Chair noted that everyone acknowledged that there was a problem with bad data. He noted that the AC had a similar issue when everyone was focused on transfers and many options were thrown out without stepping back to see what could be done about it. Leslie Nobile had brought up the question of how we measure success toward good data. The Chair stated that he was hesitant to abandon the draft policy until the AC better understood the problem statement.
CW stated that the base issue was that invalid POC data was getting into the database. He pointed out that this issue was solvable, so if this draft policy was abandoned, he would work on a ‘validate upon entry’ proposal.
DH stated that he was in favor of abandoning this draft policy as 2017-3 was sufficiently similar. He believed there was no need for two policies and two sets of AC Policy Shepherds to solve the same problem. He further stated that he believed this could not be solved through policy, and that solutions would likely involve changes to staff practice, and a tightening of the language in the Registration Services Agreement (RSA). Therefore, DH stated that he was in support of abandoning this draft policy.
JP stated that DF had a point about keeping a thread open. If the AC were to abandon this policy, it should still hold PPC to discuss the issue. JP was in favor of pursuing solution actions outside of the Policy Development Process (PDP).
DF stated that he did not believe that this policy was what the AC would move forward. He wanted the AC to look back at recent controversial issues they have discussed. He noted that the AC had been through transfer policy and out-of-region use iterations, and believed the AC should leave it, step back, and get the community’s feedback - specifically from operators. He noted that sometimes having a proposal that no one likes motivates the creation of something better.
TM pointed out that the AC is talking about one, and there were many operators at NANOG. She believed that a proposal regarding ‘validating upon entry’ beforehand would be beneficial. She noted it was difficult for ISPs to prevent bad data without support from a policy.
CT believed that DH had a point about the unfocused problem statement, and that an alternate proposal would be a good approach. He believed that there was no value in further discussing this draft policy. There was more community benefit to using 2017-3. He stated he would be happy to draft a ‘validate on input’ proposal.
Counsel believed that proceeding incrementally could be beneficial. Accuracy is likely the biggest policy issue in 2017, so how the AC moves forward with it may dictate the AC’s success. The Council may not be able ‘solve’ the entire problem, but incremental solutions might actually be helpful.
AM stated that she was in support of the motion to abandon. She believed it a disservice to have multiple policies on the same issue simultaneously open. She supported the incremental approach. She stated that she would like to see a ‘validate upon entry’ proposal.
OD stated that he was not in favor of abandoning both, but the other policy had a better problem statement and he believed that it looked like it could turn into a useful policy. This policy was supported, so there was no real loss in abandoning it. He suggested that the AC look at what the concerns were with regard to bad data. POC validation is updating POC record content. With resources tied to organization’s IDs with their own address information, cleaning up organization’s records might be law enforcement agencies bigger concern. POC records are somewhat secondary. POC linkage and organizational data are more important.
AD asked if staff needs a policy. The President replied that most of this issue might not properly belong in number resource policy, but it is not a trivial operational change that staff can undertake on its own. This issue needs community discussion, and we do not have a good process for the level of debate this issue requires outside of the PDP.
DF stated that, after hearing this discussion, he had changed his mind and was in favor of the motion to abandon. However, he cautioned the AC not to build another set of proposals and abandon them.
JSw stated that indirect POCs are put in via SWIPs. ISPs have developed software that take orders and generate POCs - sometimes many. Going through the PDP to make operational changes is most likely the way to approach this; however, a staff and legal assessment would need to be performed before the draft policy could be moved forward to RDP status. He noted that staff strain was sending thousands of POC validation e-mails. Staff receives 700 calls a month, of which approximately 150 are related to POC validation.
Counsel stated that one long-term issue would be using the RSA to solve these issues. He pointed out that ARIN did not usually use the RSA to leverage Registry activity without specific policy direction. The President replied that if ARIN is to pursue people who do not update POCs, it needs that spelled out in policy. If it is believed that ARIN should engage in a certain matter regarding POCs, including resource review, people may have comments on the matter. The RSA has tools at our disposal, between existing resource review policy and RSA language on accuracy. The ARIN Board would also weigh-in on that - this cannot be something staff or legal do unilaterally.
JP stated that the members discussed Section 3b. of the RSA at the microphone during ARIN 39.
The motion to abandon carried with 14 in favor (OD, AD, DF, DH, AM, TM, AP, JP, LS, RS, JS, CT, AW, CW), and 1 against (DA), via roll call vote.
6. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers
JS stated that this policy was presented yesterday during the ARIN 39 meeting. It received a lot of support at the microphone, and the commentary that LS had gathered may be helpful to get a sense of whether or not the AC should delay this policy.
LS stated that the streamlining and accuracy was good, but the language needed some revising. The word “additional” may need to be addressed in the text. In the Caribbean, it helps them perform M&A updates, of which they perform many.
The Chair stated that he was hesitant to group those areas that have a specific problem. LS stated that this was in relation to a large organization. JS stated that the word “additional” had been discussed at ARIN 39 at length.
The Chair stated, for clarity, that there were 123 in the meeting room, with 6 remote participants. There were 61 votes in favor, with none against.
It was moved by JS and seconded by RS, that:
“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers’ to Last Call.”
The Chair called for discussion. TM stated that there were some minor revisions made to the language, but rewriting it at this point was not as valuable as moving it forward. She believed that the AC may revisit the word ‘additional’ and language on controlling interests, but to delay this for those revisions held no value. DF agreed.
CW asked if the revisions could be considered as editorial changes. TM replied they could not as they would be substantive revisions.
The Chair asked if staff had any concerns with the language as it exists. The President stated that staff understands the intent, and that the present policy text was readable. Trying to tie resource history is difficult when performing a transaction. If you say “perform a needs assessment” or “do not perform a needs assessment,” staff will act accordingly. When you try to characterize the history of address blocks, you create ample opportunity for confusion about transaction processing. Staff is fine with the language as-is, this is just something to think about.
AP requested removing the word “additional” in thinking about dealing with lawyers, as they were not submitting the request for the space, and they do not know the history. JS stated that he did not believe the history was discussed in the text. We are removing a clause, re-inserting a clause, and removing a paragraph. Mentions of history are outside the text itself.
The President stated that folks may ask what ‘additional’ means, i.e., whether it is with respect to the current request or history of the address block, but current language is defensible.
AP stated that if one is looking at only the one transaction, the word ‘additional’ is confusing.
JS stated that he was not opposed to returning to this later, but was against delaying it at this time. DF moved (seconded by AM) to amend the motion on the table to read as follows:
“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers’ to Last Call, after removing the word ‘additional’, and changing ‘an’ to ‘a’.”
The Chair called for discussion on the motion to amend. DF stated that he understood why folks wanted to move forward without the change, but wanted this on the record for the process.
JSw believed that ARIN could defend the word ‘additional’ in the text, but that it was better for staff to have it removed for ambiguity. The President stated that staff knows what to do, but others may be confused by it.
The Chair asked if anyone took issue with the proposed change. JS pointed out that that the word was there for a reason, and the Council had voted unanimously to move it forward. He asked why they would be changing it now based on a possibility? The President replied that, specifically, people could very well be confused on what “additionally” means in the policy text.
JS stated that we were initially talking about the case where an assessment had not yet been performed; this is for those who have already had one performed. The President responded that the language has different interpretations depending if requester thinks their resources were already subject to a needs-assessment.
RS agreed with the President. He did not want organizations to know that this is just on a transactional basis. Staff does not associate “subject to needs-assessment or not” onto the resources themselves.
OD stated that the word ‘additional’ and the phrase “as part of the transfer” got added together. He agreed with removing the word ‘additional’.
DF stated that ‘at time of transfer’ is the real point.
LS pointed out that if staff is treating ‘additional’ as a no-op, why is it in the policy?
CW stated that the terms “additional” and “during the process of the 8.2 transfer” served the same purpose and, as such, the word “additional” was redundant.
The Chair then called for a vote on the amendment to the motion.
The amended motion carried with 14 in favor (DA, OD, AD, DF, DH, AM, TM, AP, JP, LS, RS, CT, AW, CW), and one against (JS), via roll call vote.
JS withdrew his original motion to move the policy as-is to last call without objection from the AC.
RS then moved to advance the Recommended Draft Policy as follows:
It was moved by RS, and seconded by LS, that:
“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers’ to Last Call, after removing the word ‘additional’ and changing ‘an’ to ‘a’.”
The Chair called for comments. CW asked if ’last call’ was sufficient for community commentary. The President stated that if the policy is in the last call period, and it had to be editorially changed, the AC can do so. The same applies to RDPs. DF noted that this issue was brought up during ARIN 39.
The Chair called for a short break at 1:15 p.m. CDT. The Chair resumed the meeting at 1:21 p.m. CDT.
The Chair asked if a statement would be needed from the AC. SH stated that a statement was not required by the PDP when moving a RDP to last call.
The President stated that a statement for the community was, however, needed to explain the change to the text. The Chair asked that those who made the motion to advance Draft Policy 2016-9 craft such a statement. RS stated that he and LS would do so.
The motion carried with 13 in favor (DA, OD, AD, DF, DH, AM, TM, JP, LS, RS, CT, AW, CW), and two abstentions (AP, JS) via roll call vote.
AP stated that she had abstained due to financial interest. JS stated that he had abstained because he wanted the matter to be further discussed on the PPML.
7. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-1: Clarify Slow-start for Transfers
AW stated that she believed that the intent was a standardization of allowing slow-start for transfers, but was unsure if it was the ’end all, be all’. She did believe that it was a good start.
AD stated that he had spoken with the author who told him it was submitted to solve a business problem that he and others may face. This had to do with some organizations finding it easier to do predictions based upon previous allocations, rather than doing projections. He wanted to allow transfers of similar size to current policy using past data instead of future projections.
The Chair asked the AC’s opinion on whether this can develop into something. Should we wait and see how the other transfer policies develop? AD stated that the new 8.5 policy does not meet author’s desires, so this language is indeed different. He believed it was a ’niche-need’.
OD stated that, in his experience of having performed transfers, if one goes to ARIN and says “I want to get more space because I’ve used half of what I have”, ARIN usually accepts that - it’s a de facto standard. OD stated he was not in a rush to abandon it, but did not believe that it held much value. He did not see the community support. He was neutral, but would support a motion to abandon.
DF believed that the author believed this was a more reasonable way to present a need of the organizations that work in this way, instead of pure projection. He agreed that basing this on history over projection was good, but did not see a clear amount of support or opposition.
AW asked if the formulation would be done by the customer or by staff. The President replied that the current 8.5.5 language could lead to speedy automation in the future, with attestations being the key accompanying documentation. The draft policy would provide an option for approvals similar to the historic allocation policy based on past utilization.
The Chair asked if waiting for the dust to settle and taking this to a NANOG meeting as a PPC would help. AD replied that he believed it needed to be clarified and sent out to the PPML again to see who else supported it. He believed it should remain on the AC’s docket.
JP stated that the text was a bit rough and needed some work, but he supported keeping it on the docket. OD agreed that the formula was a rough one, but that it could be worked on.
8. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks
AM stated that NARALO had sent many community network folks to the meeting and she had found that interesting. She stated that people believe that the definition is too narrow and restrictive, and that it does not apply to any current community networks, especially the 100% volunteer requirement. Also, they were unaware that it existed. Discussion was about whether or not it is necessary, given the changes in the fee schedule. AM was uncertain what direction to go in with this policy as the language it addressed was introduced to solve a problem that no longer existed, with respect to fees. She noted that the community networks folks seem to want a definition, but perhaps not all the provisions. AM further noted that they would like some level of recognition.
The Chair stated that he tried to foster discussion at the microphone with regard to no one wanting to use a policy that was not being applied. AM stated that she was concerned about ‘snowflake status’. CW stated that the rationale for that section is irrelevant, given the current fee schedule, but the community had asked “What if the fee schedule changes again?” The Chair pointed out that it was harder to put something back in than to remove it.
DF recommended leaving it alone and discussing it further with the community networks folks. If they want to think about it, we should let them. We can work through it.
OD believed it was clear that this proposal, as written, was not going to reach consensus and that there was no reason to leave it on the AC’s docket. He believed the NRPM should be left as-is. There was no advantage to keeping it on the the docket. He left it to the proposal shepherds to decide.
CT pointed out that listening to the community is key, and an important part of the community came to the meeting. He encouraged the shepherds to post to the PPML explaining why community networks policy exists, and what the issues are. If, after that, the draft policy is abandoned, the AC will have done its homework.
DF stated, for clarity, that he wanted to leave the draft on the AC’s docket.
DH believed it made sense to abandon this proposal, and note that if a community networks operator wanted to make changes then they should get involved.
AM did not believe that abandoning the proposal was the right approach. She suggested conducting some outreach - the results of which might support the proposal.
The President stated that he would like to see more people involved. He asked if the presence of this proposal on the AC’s docket increased involvement at the meeting. If so, it may help having it remain on the docket.
OD believed that having it on the docket spurred involvement, but mostly in opposition. He was unsure if the members wanted it to remain on the docket. He believed that the community did want 2.11 to be adjusted, but did not want policy to be removed. He noted that keeping this proposal on the docket to incentivize may be disingenuous.
ARIN’s Board Chair believed that the problems they want solved may be outside the scope of the PDP. He pointed out that the ARIN Board and staff will reach out when they can, but anything the AC could do to engage more people and to understand their issues is always beneficial.
The Chair asked AM if she would reach out to folks. AM agreed to do so.
9. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-3: Update to NRPM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation
AP stated that this draft policy had surprisingly not gone down in flames. The AC received some objection it expected with regard to removing reverse DNS. The law enforcement agencies were taken seriously, and the AC received suggestions on how to add other incentives. AP wanted to keep working on the policy. She suggested the possibility of removing legacy resources, for now, so the policy could progress more quickly. She suggested dealing with the issue of legacy resources in another proposal.
The Chair asked AM to summarize some of the points of each draft. AM stated that the other policy has a totally different problem it is trying to solve. AP recapped the current 3.6 language.
The Chair stated that law enforcement agencies had suggested that if there was a better way of doing it, they were open to ideas. The Chair asked the AC “What are some things we might consider in a rewrite of the policy?” AP suggested tying it to some financial incentives aligned with other annual interactions.
AM stated that we were not given a percentage to reach, we just need some level of improvement.
The Chair stated, for the avoidance of confusion, that it would be ideal to discuss some of the metrics that the community might use to gauge the success in six, 12, or more months.
AP stated that she had statistics on organizations with at least one live POC, which provides a good starting point for data.
DF stated that he would also like to see the AC develop a list of those interested in this information, and what their interests are, so people know what angle they are coming from. AP replied that was being done to get new language for the policy. She was trying to encourage participation. DF suggested reaching out to those stakeholders. He noted that Legacy data seemed bad, but we do not have a slice of legacy data with bad POCs, or what is in the routing table, etc. The fact that some have invalid POCs seems logical. AP believed that that that did not need to be solved in order to substantially help the law enforcement agencies.
OD pointed out that legacy resources can be a problem. If you look at routed blocks that are hard to track down, legacy accounts for about 90%. He believed that even though it’s not the low hanging fruit, if you ignore legacy this may not be as useful. Law enforcement has annual contact with ARIN. We have a high level of compliance in the legacy world.
TM stated that she spoke with staff and the law enforcement folks. She had some ideas on the matter: more research on PTR records, organization’s details versus POC details, and ways to go post-audits. If we agree that staff is going to start auditing, maybe we can provide blocks that are problem blocks.
The Chair suggested that rather than 15 people sending notes to ask JSw questions, perhaps batch them through the Chair.
JSw pointed out the ITHI presentation. POCs are part of the measurement, the registration services staff in the RIRS have come up with those, and we are handing them to the RIR engineering folks to review. They will have to build a platform for them. There will be a mechanism - it’s high level - but there will be one, for measuring and reporting on it. Also, words like “clicking the validation link” lock staff operations into procedures that are more difficult to change. Sometimes operational items have to be in there, but if it is too specific, it can cause issues.
CT stated that this requires policy guidance and operational means, and possibly fees. He suggested that if the policy is made too prescriptive, rather than saying just use all means available to do validation within a prescribed timeframe, we might not see as much success. If we let staff and the Board do some of the work, we stand a better chance of seeing this become successful operationally.
ARIN’s Board Chair stated that the Board is happy to look at the best way to tackle an issue, at the microphone or elsewhere, whether or not it all pertains to policy.
TM stated she spoke with Mr. Flaim, who is not planning on attending more meetings, and that the AC should get a hand-off contact.
10. ARIN-Prop-235: Clarify Generic References to “IP Addresses” In NRPM
CW stated that the text of the proposal was modified after the last NRPM update. He stated that he wanted to conduct a final review. There was a question of whether a search/replace was necessary, or whether a general clarification would suffice. He believed the consensus was to itemize and move forward. He noted that the second question was that we may have missed some of the occurrences. CT stated that he would like to conduct his own review, and invited anyone to weigh-in. He then intended to make an editorial change.
AD moved to abandon ARIN-Prop-235. There was no second on the motion.
The President stated that if the proposal did not have a valid problem statement, the AC should develop one in conjunction with the author. The Chair stated that the AC needs to be clear on what it wants to do.
AD withdrew the motion to abandon the proposal.
JSw stated that there are many more instances of the reference of “IP addresses”, or similar phrases. OD stated that the intent of the language only calls for changing 20 instances. CW explained that the intent is to only address 20 of them, but he would review the text and the impacted NRPM sections again, before proceeding. The Chair stated that the author has the option to petition.
DF noted that there had not been much feedback on the AC’s list regarding this matter. It would be beneficial if others participated.
The Chair agreed to the shepherds revising the proposal and working on it for one more month, to be discussed at the AC’s next regularly scheduled meeting.
11. ARIN-Prop-236: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers
It was moved by RS, and seconded by DF, that:
“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-236: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers’ as a Draft Policy.”
The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.
The motion carried unanimously via roll call.
Counsel cautioned the AC to remember how this might be leveraged or misinterpreted by governments as the AC moves forward.
12. Any Other Business
The Chair called for any other business.
NANOG 70 Update
The Chair stated that the AC went through the process of requesting a PPC with the NANOG Program Committee, removing staff from being in the middle of the matter. The Chair stated that he wanted to address discussing Whois at NANOG; and, if the AC want to hold an actual PPC, or just a discussion session on their agenda. He noted that if the AC wanted to hold a PPC, they would conduct one in the usual way. If the AC preferred to have only a discussion session listed as an agenda item, the Chair asked if such a session should come from ARIN staff.
The President stated that the AC should feel free to lead a discussion session. He pointed out, however, that if the AC holds a PPC, it can possibly move policy forward based on the support shown. If it does not hold a PPC, it can still hold a discussion and receive input, but a show of support done outside of a formal PPC cannot be used to advance policies, as it would be contrary to the PDP. He noted that NANOG is closing the window soon to get on their agenda. If the AC just wants a session for discussion, it can submit it per the usual channels.
The Chair stated that if the AC does not hold a PPC, it might use staff, or a law enforcement agency, to hold a panel and to provide background, etc.
AM noted that the law enforcement agencies really want movement. If a PPC could be held, it would be beneficial.
DF stated that he could not possibly support moving the proposal forward until after a legitimate meeting. He preferred NANOG be involved in June so that they stay for us in the fall.
TM stated that the reasons that PPCs are unsuccessful during NANOG meetings is that they are boring, with low attendance. She would like the AC to frame all the POC matters and law enforcement agencies’ matters to how operators think.
CW stated that, given this discussion, he would be surprised if by June there was actionable language; therefore, he believed, a PPC was ill-advised over a normal session.
The Chair stated that he was getting the sense that a PPC was not optimal, but that there was much support for a discussion to be placed on the agenda on this subject.
The COO reminded the AC that the Treasurer had pointed out that ARIN’s expenses are higher for 2017. The COO therefore urged the AC to book their travel sooner, rather than later, to keep costs at a minimum. He also reminded them that if ARIN staff does not book their travel, they need to send a copy of their paid itinerary to staff - not only for travel insurance purposes, but also for the staff and Board’s knowledge of who is potentially presenting at a meeting on ARIN’s behalf.
The Chair requested that staff provide him with a list of any AC members who had not submitted expense reports for ARIN travel thus far.
The President explained that if travelers do not submit a copy of their itinerary to ARIN staff prior to traveling, ARIN is not obligated to reimburse them for their travel. He asked them to keep this in mind, noting that the Board is also bound by this procedure. He further noted that having copy of their itinerary on file is for the safety of each traveler.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 2:46 p.m. CDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by CW. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.
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.