Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 May 2017 [Archived]

Teleconference

Advisory Council Attendees

• Dan Alexander, Chair (DA)
• Tina Morris, Vice Chair (TM)
• Owen DeLong (OD)
• Andrew Dul (AD)
• David Huberman (DH)
• Alyssa Moore (AM)
• Amy Potter (AP)
• Joe Provo (JP)
• Leif Sawyer (LS)
• Rob Seastrom (RS)
• John Springer (JS)
• Alison Wood (AW)
• Chris Woodfield (CW)

Scribe

• Thérèse Simcox

ARIN Staff

• Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Nate Davis (ND), COO
• Sean Hopkins, (SH) Policy Analyst
• Leslie Nobile, Sr. Director, Global Registry Knowledge
• John Sweeting (JSw), Senior Dir., Registration Services

AC Member Regrets

• David Farmer
• Chris Tacit

1. Welcome

The Chair called meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

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 RS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 05 April 2017, as written.”

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 draft policy cleared last call with nothing but support on PPML.

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-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion, and asked if there were any issues or concerns raised during Last Call period. DH stated there had been no issues raised. He stated that given the consistent favorable floor count totals at ARIN 39, the community being heavily in favor of the policy, the policy advancing through the Policy Development Process (PDP), and the policy being supported on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), it was ready to go.

The Chair asked for information about the show of hands, or any other input from ARIN 39. DH stated there were 50 in favor, and 1 against.

The motion carried with all in favor (13) via roll call, vote.

5. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers

JS stated the policy had cleared the Last Call period and had some additional statements of support with no issues.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-9: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with all in favor (13) via roll call vote.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-1: Clarify Slow-start for Transfers

Policy Shepherds AW and AD worked with author Jason Schiller on this policy. The feedback from the community indicated that it did not want to change what was already written. The concern was raised as to whether the policy is a broad statement or a narrow statement with regard to the author’s company. AW stated that she appreciated the President’s public comments on the PPML. She stated that she and AD may abandon it.

AD stated he had not received a reply from his last note to Mr. Schiller. The Shepherds intended to abandon the policy at next AC meeting unless sufficient support is shown for work to continue. The Shepherds will post a follow-up message to PPML for feedback one more time.

The Chair thanked them for the update.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-2: Removal of Community Networks

AM stated that there has not been any discussion on the PPML, but she was working on a message to clarify the history and foster discussion. She also would be meeting with folks who were members of community networks, and get them to discuss the topic on the PPML. She was hopeful there would be more information to come next month.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-3: Update to NRPM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation

AP stated that there was some conversation on the PPML. There will be a presentation at the upcoming NANOG meeting on Whois issues, and she expected to get feedback from the Operators community. She stated she would be attending the NANOG meeting, and asked if any other AC members were there, to act as sounding boards to the community for feedback on how to best revise the policy.

The Chair stated that he had spoken with the NANOG Program Committee regarding the time slot for the session. Whois Accuracy is slated for the main agenda, and he is working with LN on slides this week. AP asked if there could be a meeting room available afterwards for folks to talk about it with AC members. The Chair mentioned that with the session time being near the end of the day, the attendees would likely begin to leave the meeting. He did not believe a meeting room would be needed. CW suggested that the ARIN Helpdesk may be a good location for the after-discussion.

The President reminded the AC that they were welcome to obtain input from anywhere, including the main NANOG session, but that it was input for the AC’s consideration only. He cautioned them not to attempt to take formal polls at NANOG, since their main session is different from the requirements for an ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC). For example, participation at NANOG is not available to all at no cost. Remote participation questions and answers would not be assured; therefore, any feedback will not qualify, and the Board cannot consider it, per the Policy Development Process (PDP).

The Chair reiterated and agreed that it will not be a PPC, and therefore it is only a discussion of the topic of Whois accuracy. No show of support would be asked of the community.

9. Draft Policy 2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers

JP stated that he had not seen that a staff and legal review had been requested, but thought that he and RS had done requested one. He stated it needed to be done. He noted that there was minor positive support on the PPML.

The Chair stated that he had replied to JP via email, but it bounced. RS and JP, Policy Shepherds, both believed they had requested the staff and legal review, but were not sure. SHo stated that he saw no record of a request for a staff and legal review.

The Policy Shepherds requested the staff and legal review at this time. The Chair stated that staff will provide the staff and legal review, and it would be discussed at the AC’s next teleconference in June.

10. ARIN-Prop-235: Clarify Generic References to “IP Addresses” In NRPM

CW stated that this proposal should be remanded to the author. A number of edits were suggested in order to achieve the goals of the problem statement, and there has been no reply from the author. OD stated he would prefer to focus on other important items.

The Chair stated that, without objection, the AC will remand ARIN-Prop-235 to the author. There were no objections.

11. ARIN-Prop-240: Equalization of Assignment Registration Requirements between IPv4 and IPv6

LS stated that CT had been unavailable, but that CT wanted to review the proposal. There are immediate concerns with regard to the removal of ISP names from the proposal, and to take a look at an IPv4 change that would affect sections in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) not addressed in this proposal. He wanted to remand the proposal to author. He stated that he also had a draft re-write of the proposal, if the author approves of it. LS further stated he wanted to discuss the proposal with CT.

CW pointed out that there seemed to be two proposals: IPv6 and IPv4. To standardize things, CW recommended limiting the scope to a /64 to affect the IPv6 portion only. The Chair suggested calling upon the author for cleanup of the proposal prior to remanding it, to obtain the author’s feedback.

DH objected to this direction. He wanted it on the AC’s docket to work on it. He was not in disagreement of the concerns, but acknowledged the proposal required work and that was the AC’s task. The Chair explained that some language needed to be cleaned up first - like removing corporate names.

The President stated that the AC could confer with the author and have him revise it and resubmit it, or the AC could accept it onto the docket and edit as it wished. The advantage of accepting it onto the docket was that it will get attention on the PPML, and will be available to be discussed at next ARIN meeting. Remanding a proposal should be used when a proposal is not in scope per the PDP.

The Chair suggested that the Shepherds have a conversation with the author, as there was plenty of time, and then the AC could consider accepting it onto the docket.

OD stated that putting it on the docket did not preclude the AC with working with author, but having it on the docket gives the text visibility on the PPML. He agreed with DH’s comments.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-240: Equalization of Assignment Registration Requirements between IPv4 and IPv6’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. JS stated that he had heard no representations from either shepherd that the problem statement was clear and in scope; and he had not scrutinized the text himself to offer any opinion. He stated he was against the motion.

The Chair asked LS as Policy Shepherd, if the text was clear and in scope. LS stated that the majority of the text was editorial, and further acknowledged that the problem statement was wordy, but it was in scope.

OD stated that he believed that DH had stated what he believed in that it was clear and in scope. OD stated it could be worked on and improved. He believed the text to be sufficient enough to move forward.

JS summarized that the problem statement has issues, and the AC is not requiring perfect clarity, but also without describing what the concerns are, the AC would be undertaking unspecified work. He asked “What kind of increased clarity will take place?”

OD replied that the problem statement was actually clear, but wordy. It was clear and in scope.

JS acknowledged OD’s comment but did not agree. He stated that he would like to hear CT’s thoughts.

The Chair stated that CT was unavailable, and that LS is the one who can speak to the matter. It was not about the merits of the proposal, rather, that we understand the proposal’s intent.

CW stated that he believed the problem statement was clear and to keep in mind that the author is not an AC member and not used to writing proposals. The text is understandable.

The motion carried with 12 in favor, and 1 against (JS) via roll call vote.

AD suggested striking references to the specific organization named in the text prior to posting it to the PPML. LS acknowledged AD’s comment and stated that he would do so.

12. Any Other Business

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

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:43 p.m. EDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by LS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.