Thursday, 20 June 2013
Advisory Council Attendees:
- John Sweeting, Chair (JSw)
- Dan Alexander, Vice Chair (DA)
- Cathy Aronson (CA)
- Kevin Blumberg (KB)
- Bill Darte (BD)
- Owen DeLong (OD)
- David Farmer (DF)
- Chris Grundemann (CG)
- Stacy Hughes (SH)
- Scott Leibrand (SL)
- Milton Mueller (MM)
- Bill Sandiford (BS)
- Heather Schiller (HS)
- Rob Seastrom (RS)
- John Springer (JSp)
- Thérèse Colosi
Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
- Einar Bohlin (EB), Sr. Policy Analyst
John Curran, President & CEO
Nate Davis, COO
ARIN General Counsel
- Steve Ryan, Esq.
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted. It was acknowledged that Bill Darte would be slightly delayed.
2. Agenda Review
The Chair called for any comments. The Chair stated that what occurred at the recent Public Policy Consultation (PPC) during NANOG 58 would be covered under item 11. The policies presented at the PPC would be covered under each policy discussion item.
3. Approval of the Minutes
It was moved by CG, and seconded by OD, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 16 May 2013, as written."
The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.
The motion carried with no objections.
4. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-1: Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers of ASNs
It was moved by SL and seconded by SH, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council abandons 'Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-1: Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers of ASNs'."
The Chair called for discussion. SL stated there had been no support in the community for this policy; and that there were no supporters at the PPC during NANOG. He noted a 'tepid' reception of the policy during the last ARIN 31 meeting. He believed the policy would not accomplish anything in the absence of another RIR performing the same practice.
MM pointed out that there was support for abandonment on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML).
The motion carried with all in favor, via roll call.
5. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-2: 3GPP Network IP Resource Policy
It was moved by SL and seconded by SH, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council abandons 'Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2013-2: 3GPP Network IP Resource Policy'."
The Chair called for discussion. SL stated this recommended draft policy was presented at the PPC during NANOG to ascertain whether anyone wanted to continue working on it. Most were of the opinion that it was not broadly applicable, or worth working on. Feedback was not supportive during ARIN 31.
The motion carried with all in favor, via roll call.
6. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles
CG stated that there were no AC actions needed at this time. The policy shepherds were working with the original proposer, reviewing the feedback received through e-mail threads, and the initial feedback from staff. There would be a new version posted prior to the AC's next meeting.
SL asked for an idea of what direction the revisions will take. CG explained it was still under discussion. The AC has the draft policy, and would like the author included. The details needed to be worked out. SL wanted to ensure that the community's input is included, so as to not have a narrow view. CG agreed and stated there was opposition to needs based matters, but otherwise there was support. Most of the opposition was also based on the fact that the text is too wordy. Practices may need to be separated, and the principles written without practices. The next text will be concise and more direct. SL agreed.
KB noted that it had been a while since there was so much discussion on a topic on the PPML. He believed this text was too encompassing and that not everyone will agree to all the same points. He was glad to hear it will be revised, but asked if CG thought it would be too different without the practices included? CG stated that he believed this policy had raised interest. It was an emotionally charged topic and people were responding strongly. Feedback would be incorporated, and it could be moved forward. He noted that the author had done a good job of using text from RFC 2050 and ARIN's Policy Development Process (PDP). The author had crafted those texts together, and broke it up into points. The revisions would present the text in a less contentious way.
MM acknowledged CG's statements, but stated that he was more in line with KB's comments with regard to the point that other than registration principles, there had been no community agreement on anything. He did not believe a useful product would come from this exercise. He believed there was a principle perception that practices were being rationalized by calling them part of the principles; and did not believe consensus would be reached anytime soon. He believed it best to scale back the effort, or abandon it.
BD joined at this time (4:24 p.m. EDT).
JSp stated that a request for support, or non-support, was sent with regard to the 3 core principles. Exclusivity was getting unanimous support, and the 2 other principles were contentious. He queried whether the text could be partitioned into three or four different policies. CG stated that his plan, at this point, was to push it forward as a full principle document. If that failed, then the AC would look at the matter of registration uniqueness. He was not ready to split up the text at this time, but look to build a set of principles, and then split it up if needed. BD agreed with CG.
RS agreed with MM on the fact that it was hard to determine if it would reach consensus or not. There had been a large amount of postings on the PPML, from only two to three people. He cautioned the shepherds count each person only once when figuring consensus. To CG's point, he stated that it would not surprise him to have to split up the items in order to reach consensus on the individual parts. He stated that he preferred one document, but that it may be difficult to reach consensus on it.
DF stated that he too was skeptical of only one single document, but was not ready to give up. He pointed out that this had yet to be presented to the community, which would be done at ARIN 32, and not to give up too soon. He believed that the AC should try this first, and then figure out what to do if it did not work. He expressed that it was very important to focus discussion on the principles as they relate to IPv6 as well, not just IPv4, as IPv6 will be what is utilized going forward. He believed if IPv6 were not served through this document, then the community would not be well served.
The Chair summarized that CG will move forward using the feedback received, and revisions will take place with author. CG agreed that was the plan, with new text would be posted prior to the next AC meeting.
7. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-5: LIR/ISP and End-user Definitions
KB stated that the staff and legal review analysis had been requested. He noted that the text, as written, did not define what staff needed. The text was presented at the PPC, and response was supportive until someone noticed that the definition could have ramifications for end-users and ISPs. He stated that he has spoken with the author, and MM; and, that he would work on a revision. He believed that a definitive guide would change the landscape drastically, and that consensus would not be reached.
The President explained that staff wanted consideration of the issue, but it was fine to say there was no consensus reached on the need to change anything, if that became the case, and then abandon the draft policy. In the Policy Experience Report, the ARIN staff noted vagueness and wanted to know if there were better criteria that could be applied.
JSp stated that he was surprised by the ambiguity that has left it to organizations to self-sort their categories. If there was a way to identify how it happened, specific ways of crafting principles could be done.
The President stated that ARIN's job was to administer number resources and, to the greatest extent possible, approve not deny; and as such, flexibility was an advantage if the community deemed it appropriate. Organizations would self-identify to their own advantage. If that was a problem, the community needed to make that clear. The President stated he did not know if it was a problem. He wanted to make sure that staff was working on the same assumptions as the community.
CG stated that he had sent a revised text to the AC in mid-May, when the draft policy was posted to list. It received some support, and that may be helpful. He asked if that had been considered. He did not note any contention with not being able to come up with definitions.
SL stated he was the original author on this draft policy, and that his philosophy was, and is, that staff was able to correctly identified those definitions. As written, they were too ambiguous. It should be fine for those organizations in ambiguous situations to self-sort. The original version needed to be revised, but it would behoove the AC to keep with definitions that clarify obvious cases, and not have a gap between the two definitions. He did not want to lock down each organization into defining the category into which they fell.
The Chair suggested the shepherds hold a conference call with the Director of Registration Services.
KB agreed with the Chair. He stated to CG that, with regard to the text CG had posted in May, by changing to CG's definition as written, many end–user organizations would fit into the ISP realm; and that was of concern.
KB asked the President that if the definition of an ISP, or the ability to switch between ISP and end-user, were not identified in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), would staff then make the determination? The President responded that if it were not written in policy, ARIN would be as flexible as possible and would say yes either way. ARIN presently allows organizations to move between the categories if they appear to meet the definition per NRPM of the category into which they want to move. KB asked that by not having in it defined in the NRPM, flexibility is increased? The President explained that organizations have come to ARIN identifying themselves as one category or the other. For CDN's, hosting companies, enterprises, universities, etc., ARIN has approved the movement from one category to another when requested and compatible with the existing definitions. The community must remain aware of the practice.
OD stated he took issue with a comment that had been made with regard to considering this to the end of free pool, as this would refer to ASNs, where free pools are not ending. DF agreed.
DF recommended that if AC members had not listened to the PPC recording, to please do so as very good comments had been made.
KB stated he would schedule a conference call with interested parties, stating that he was concerned about consensus on the proposal.
CG stated that it would be beneficial to be as transparent as possible. He was not aware of off-list conversations. KB acknowledged CG's comment.
BD stated that this matter was a bit more confusing now than it had been for the past 15 years or so. This topic had been discussed many times in the past by staff, and he supported it now as he had then; however, he pointed out that each time no consensus was reached. Discussion of the matter cleared the air, however, and the ARIN practice had continued to be utilized. He believed that having the conversation remained beneficial, but if there was no conclusion to, or consensus for it – he did not see that as a problem.
8. ARIN-Prop-186: Section 8.2 Reorganizations
CG stated that he had posted this as an editorial change, and that the comment period was over. The Chair stated this matter was in need of a motion in order to send it to the ARIN Board recommending it as editorial change.
It was moved by CG, and seconded by KB, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council recommends that the proposal entitled, 'Section 8.2 Reorganizations', be sent to the ARIN Board as an editorial change."
The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.
The motion carried with all in favor, via roll call.
9. ARIN-Prop-189: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-Region Requestors
It was moved by DF, and seconded by BD, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council accepts 'Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-Region Requestors' as a Draft Policy."
The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that the shepherds had held a teleconference with the authors recently; and, he believed that they had crafted text worthy of discussion.
JSp stated that he supported the motion, but had reservations about the proposal itself. CG stated that he too had reservations.
BD responded that there had been a lot of sentiment expressed on the matter. The challenge had been to get it to fit the PDP, and to get it to a point where it could be discussed. He believed the text was ready; and, that it was time to move it forward.
DF stated that he was unsure if he supported the policy's intent, but that he did support discussion. He noted that staff had raised this issue for at least the past 2 years. There had not been consensus on a solution, but the authors believed it to be a valid issue. He believed it needed to be discussed again. He hoped that something useful would result, and the AC could focus on IPv6 for the long-term.
The Chair asked DF to speak on the matter of the emergency process. DF explained that the authors had believed this to be an urgent matter and the emergency policy process was brought up in conversation. DF directed them to the comments made on the PPML with regard to what constitutes an 'emergency' policy matter.
The Chair stated that the authors, to date, had not formally requested that the emergency process be invoked. He asked the AC if they believed it to be an emergency matter.
DF stated he could not see how it could be an emergency, since the topic itself has never been solved.
MM stated that he had seen a tendency for law enforcement to intervene in the bottom-up process, to circumvent it as an 'emergency'. This had happened in other organizations. He believed the text should move forward for discussion, but to be aware of the larger significance from the sense of the multi-stakeholder process; and, to be prepared for pressure if this did not pass. He believed that the cases being made for this policy as an 'emergency' were weak, as was the case for the policy itself.
The Chair stated he had never witnessed undo pressure outside of ARIN policies, but noted it was a concern.
The President stated that obviously ARIN would comply with whatever the community wanted. If strong consensus emerged, and the community requested emergency action, it could be brought to the ARIN Board for consideration. He noted that the Board strongly avoids emergency action, and would consider it only if there were very strong consensus of the urgent need for a change. Based on the discussion to date, he believed that this policy would not warrant emergency action. The Chair agreed with the President and did not believe that the authors were looking to pursue emergency action that at this time.
SH left the call at this time (5:04 p.m. EDT).
The motion to move to Draft Policy carried with all in favor, via roll call.
The Chair tasked staff to send a reminder to the AC on text deadlines for ARIN 32. EB acknowledged.
10. Improve Communications Group (IC) Report
(IC Members: CG, BD, JSp)
CG stated that the decorum and incremental approaches of the document that had been crafted were separated and forwarded to the Chair for consideration. The remainder of the information - processes and best practices of the shepherds - was being revised. Additionally, the extra curricular roles of the AC (sitting on the Nomcom, Mentoring, etc.) were being identified and descriptions were being crafted to ensure a comprehensive guideline for what it meant to be an AC member. CG welcomed input from the AC and invited them to join the IC, if they so chose. He stated he would have the document for distribution as soon as possible.
11. Report on ARIN PPC at NANOG 58
The Chair stated this PPC was a bit disappointing in that participation was sparse. This was due to the PPC being slated opposite a brand new NANOG track that attracted 200+ in attendance.
CG stated that the format for the next NANOG meeting in October in Phoenix, AZ had been changed. He explained that the ARIN PPC would be slated opposite NANOG tutorials, as a result of changes of the NANOG Program Committee. They wanted to try this new format as a solution to conflicts with more popular tracks. The President believed it to be a positive change. He noted that the October meeting is the ARIN/NANOG joint meeting, and the PPC did not have to be utilized, due to the fact that ARIN would hold it's normal sessions. He stated that at a minimum, ARIN should report on the open draft policies.
The President stated that he had spoken with Betty Burke of NANOG. The NANOG Program Committee was very sympathetic, and wanted to try this new format as a solution. He believed it to be a positive change. He noted that the October meeting is the ARIN/NANOG joint meeting, and the PPC did not have to be utilized, due to the fact that ARIN would hold it's normal sessions. He stated that at a minimum, we should report on the open sessions. The PPCs were useful at NANOG stand-alone meetings. The first 30 minutes should be informational about PPCs.
CA stated with regard to the recent PPC held, that the room looked empty and that the camera angle needed to change. It did not leave a good impression to see empty chairs. She also suggested that when referring to the PPC on the PPML, do not say there were many comments, when there were only two. All agreed.
KB noted that there was a lot of content for the PPC, and that there was valuable input to be had as some attendees would not attend the ARIN meeting, but only the NANOG meeting.
BS left the call at this time (5:17 p.m. EDT).
The Chair agreed with KB and he did not believe there would be any duplication. The President stated ARIN is happy to hold a PPC, but wanted to ensure that things are not materially changed between the PPC and the ARIN meeting.
BD stated that he was sympathetic to KBs comments, and he thought it beneficial to be engaging with the NANOG community. He was concerned with regard to running the PPC at a NANOG meeting when it was held jointly with ARIN. He realized there would be NANOG-only attendees, but was concerned it would be a way for them to find reason not to attend the ARIN meeting. He stated that he was, however, willing to this approach.
DF believed it would take a lot of work from the ARIN Board Chair to do this correctly: if the PPC is held at the ARIN/NANOG joint meetings, he suggested the Chair request, of the people who would be staying, to keep their comments brief so that the NANOG-only attendees could provide their feedback. The success of this depended on the ARIN Board Chair. The President stated he would ensure that the Board Chair is sufficiently briefed.
The Chair stated that the AC needed to foster attendance in the community.
JSp queried if ARIN were losing one meeting per year. The President explained that beginning in 2015, there would be only one ARIN Public Policy Meeting (PPM).
JSp asked what would happen in 2016. The President replied it was up to the AC. The Board believes one ARIN Meeting per year is sufficient if ARIN was holding PPCs with NANOG.
JSp stated that the PPC's are seemingly experimental, and they are failing as new PPMs. The Chair explained that it was a learning process, but JSp's point was well taken. JSp stated that between now and 2015 we need to really assess if the PPCs were successful or not. The President asked if he had any recommendations. JSp replied he was optimistic of what had been discussed here.
KB stated he had attended 8 to 10 NANOG meetings and observed that it was a different group than one saw at ARIN meetings. In large organizations, two people are sent to attend both; however, he foresaw that if ARIN shrunk the number of its meetings, then ARIN would not gain the attendance of that organization's person who should have attended the ARIN meeting. He believed that adding a social event and activities would be beneficial if it was a 1.5 day real conference, piggy-backed to NANOG, so that the ARIN attendee had a reason to fly out and attend – but not for half a day of content. He believed the PPM was the only way to receive good attendance, and that the PPC was predominantly attended by the NANOG crowd. He suggested that during the PPM, ARIN ask for input on this process. It would help the decision process for 2015.
The President responded that he was planning to do just that in October at ARIN 32. He stated it would be presented in an explicit session.
SL was against holding a PPC the same week as the PPM. He appreciated that NANOG was willing to supply ARIN a slot, and believed it would be beneficial next year. However, broken up information for two different audiences, two days apart would 'fill time' and would not satisfy a goal. The President stated that other RIRs do their NIC meeting or RIR meeting in the midst of a week long meeting that includes NOG content, etc. He posed that this did not work here because the communities are so different, and asked if this was the reason.
SL reiterated that he would be against the same discussion being conducted two times, for two audiences, two days apart. DF believed that discussion of one or two policies discussions in between the NANOG meeting and the ARIN PPM would be acceptable, but not rushing through all the polices and then discussing them again two days later during the ARIN PPM. SL agreed. The Chair pointed out that then we would be telling ARIN attendees that they need to come for the whole week for all the policy discussions. SL countered that we have been telling them to come to all the NANOG meetings too.
CA stated the need to be clear to the members of the AC as to what days to attend. The Chair explained that not all AC members would be expected attend the PPC at NANOG, only the shepherds of the proposals to be presented. All AC members would be expected to attend the ARIN PPM.
The President stated that the fact that we would hold a PPC at a joint meeting in Phoenix was something not planned, but happened because we were moved to the Tuesday slot, and we had a session. The AC should cover whatever they feel to be appropriate on Tuesday, in addition to the Thursday/Friday ARIN PPM. We will discuss at that time how to move forward. If you were a shepherd and would be presenting, then you would need to be there on Tuesday.
The Chair stated that the AC should conduct the PPC as past PPC's have been conducted. It would have nothing to do with the PPM that would be conducted two days later.
JSp noted that NANOG is also discussing cutting back. CG stated that that is not a solid option for NANOG at this time. JSp asked if the PPC in Phoenix prohibited discussion during the ARIN PPM? The President explained that it would be no different than if feedback were received via the PPML the day before the PPM. Text should not be changed, but discussion could certainly take place.
HS left the call at this time (5:40 p.m. EDT).
12. Any Other Business
The Chair called for any other business. There were no comments.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:41 p.m. EDT. RS moved to adjourn, seconded by CA. The meeting adjourned with no objections.