Thursday, 21 July 2016
Advisory Council Attendees:
- Dan Alexander, Chair (DA)
- Kevin Blumberg, Vice Chair (KB)
- Owen DeLong (OD)
- Andrew Dul (AD)
- David Farmer (DF)
- David Huberman (DH)
- Scott Leibrand (SL)
- Tina Morris (TM)
- Amy Potter (AP)
- Leif Sawyer (LS)
- Rob Seastrom (RS)
- John Springer (JS)
- Chris Tacit (CT)
- Therese Colosi
- Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
- John Curran (President), President & CEO
- Nate Davis (ND), COO
- Susan Hamlin (SH), Dir. Communications & Member Services
- Sean Hopkins (SHo), Policy Analyst
ARIN General Counsel
- Stephen Ryan, Esq.
- Cathy Aronson
- Milton Mueller
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted.
2. Agenda Review
The Chair reviewed the agenda. DF asked if Item 11, ARIN–Prop-231, could be discussed earlier in the agenda, as he would have had a hard stop before the meeting ended. The Chair acknowledged, stating that Item 11 would be addressed after Item 3 on the agenda. CT requested a discussion of his recent post to the AC list regarding simplification of proposals and their relation to the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). The Chair agreed to add the item under Any Other Business.
3. Approval of the Minutes
It was moved by OD, and seconded by RS, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 16 June 2016, as written."
The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.
The motion carried with no objections and one abstention (CT). CT explained he was not present at the June meeting; hence he did not vote.
The Chair stated that Item 11 would be discussed at this time.
11. ARIN-Prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM
It was moved by DF and seconded by KB, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council accepts 'ARIN-Prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM' as a Draft Policy."
The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that he had sent his summary to the AC's list earlier today. The Chair asked for any comments or questions. There were none.
The motion carried with all in favor via roll call vote.
4. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients)
CT stated that this Recommended Draft Policy (RDP) would be circulated as-is with the updated staff and legal review to Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) once more. Presently, no feedback had been received. He noted it was ready to be presented in Dallas in October at ARIN 38 for community discussion.
5. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified Requirements for Demonstrated Need for IPv4 Transfers
RS stated that there had been no changes to this Draft Policy (DP). He believed that it needed to be combined with the two other similar proposals for community to discussion.
The Chair noted that this DP had been revised and the new staff and legal review was conducted. RS stated there had been no feedback received. He believed that there were so many proposals being worked on by the AC, that moving this one to Recommended Draft Policy at this point was not possible. He noted that at ARIN 37 there was no feedback either way, for or against this DP. In absence of consensus, he was inclined to leave it as in DP status for ARIN 38. RS stated that there were other proposals that may make this DP irrelevant. The Chair acknowledged RS's comments.
SL stated that possibly the lack of response was due to the fact people already responded positively, and they did not feel the need to continue to do so. He suggested making it a requirement if the AC believed it necessary. RS stated that posting a revision, although not substantive, and receiving no comments was concerning. SL stated he would be happy to send a post to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) to foster feedback. RS stated that if the AC believed it could be moved forward, they could do so at this point.
KB did not believe the DP was ready to move forward. He pointed out that the DP conflicts with one or two other DPs on the AC's docket; and, that time was needed to address the issues. The DPs co-mingle and cannot move forward - even two at a time. They have similar problem statements each approached in a different way.
KB noted the concern in the staff and legal review, referring to Counsel's comments on attestation. He stated that there are a number of policies using that as a way of lowering the bar on the needs tests conducted. He requested clarification on the fact that - other than brand new out of region transfers - attestation is not found in the NRPM. He asked if ARIN used attestation, historically, outside of NRPM. He also requested hearing more of Counsel's concerns that attestation should not be used to diminish the needs test, or at least be very careful of doing so.
The President stated that ARIN currently does make use of Officer Attestation in processing a request at the final stage, to ensure that the information that has been provided is accurate. This process can be found on the ARIN website. In solely relying on Officer Attestation – in lieu of a needs assessment - it is instead the company officer who is stating that they have need for usage.
KB stated that his concern was that the way it was being used ended up removing ARIN's ability to do any authorizations - the transfer is completed and it is then a fraud issue versus verification prior to the transfer. The President stated it is the Officer Attestation of the organization's need, versus (currently) where they state the information is accurate. If ARIN requests them to certify their level of need, it is easy to process the request relying solely on the organization's statement. The President noted that ARIN would only have the ability to pursue fraud if someone subsequently and overtly violated policy (e.g. initiating a transfer with the address block just received.)
KB stated that from an AC perspective, he wanted to flesh out if Counsel's comments would impact the criteria that the AC was working toward, and does the AC need clarification to clean up the text, or do they need to make sure the community is fully aware in order to move this DP forward.
Counsel stated that, as the AC makes policy, an easy out is to make an organization attest their need. For people who are interested in committing fraud, it is just paperwork. Substitution for evaluation needs to be seen as a 'fig leaf' if it is used as a substitute for a review of data.
KB asked the AC if the AC was not looking at need purely attestation-based, does it jive with the conservation requirement? He believed the AC needed to look at it offline, moving forward.
DF left at this time (4:29 pm EDT).
JS stated he had no objections, but did not want to see idea that the community's silence needs to be codified. He did not want to see the AC move slowly because they took community silence as opposition.
OD believed the DP should move forward, agreeing with JS. OD was opposed to the policy, but noted that the community supported it and had no objections.
It was moved by OD, and seconded by SL, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council recommends 'Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified Requirements for Demonstrated Need for IPv4 Transfers.' for adoption."
The Chair called for further comments. RS spoke in favor of motion. He stated that he is not a fan of fraud, noting that when there was a free pool and no cost to acquire address space, beyond convincing ARIN you needed it, that was worrisome. When money is involved, there is a record-high amount of back pressure due to money in the transfer market, and having to convince ARIN. He was in favor of the motion.
AD asked in regard to the previous discussion of an organization who intends to commit fraud and attestation is just paperwork: Is there another process that we should consider that provides more than what is proposed in the draft policy, but is less than producing an entire needs assessment, and verifying the veracity of that data?
The President stated that, with regard to transfers, to the extent a party wants to transfer space as an operating entity, it is not likely ARIN would catch someone who says they need a /16 but actually only needs a /18. That is the downside of relying on organizations to represent their need. A non-operating organization wants to transfer space. Their risk is much higher if ARIN detects an issue, as it would then pursue a resource review. If the request proved to be fraudulent, ARIN can reclaim the block and potentially pursue criminal fraud charges.
DH stated that, as a member of the community, he supported the concepts – if it existed by itself. But as the AC, we have 2015-3 and 2015-5 currently in DP status, and both seek different solutions for same concept. We need to harmonize them and talk to the community. He stated that he was highly against the motion, and urged the AC to slow down.
SL stated, as co-author on all of the similar proposals, that there was less overlap than it first appeared. He believed that if 2015-7 received support it would obviates the other similar proposals. The AC could and should adopt it, and move it forward as a RDP, not as the only option - but as an option. If it moves forward, the AC can look at the other similar DPs, and see if any parts of them are useful – thought he did not believe that would be the case. SL did not believe there were any conceptual conflicts with moving them forward at the same time, but the community has to decide. He believed it appropriate to pass the motion, and that there were no conflicts with the other DPs.
AP stated that she agreed with DH. To RS's comments, she did not see money being involved as a big factor in the accurate allocation of needs.
KB stated that he did not support the motion. He was in support of working further on the issues, and believed that moving this DP forward at this time was premature. He pointed out that once a DP is recommended by the AC, it means that the AC believes that it is ready to go. He did not believe there was enough community feedback to move it forward.
The Chair called for a roll call vote.
The motion failed with 9 against (DA, KB, AD, DH, TM, AP, LS, RS, CT) and three (OD, SL, JS) in favor via roll call vote.
6. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy
OD noted that messages of support had been received on the PPML on the changes from last post.
7. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-2: Change Timeframes for All IPv4 Requests to 24 Months
TM stated that the text was updated text to make it more readable due to many bulleted changes. She stated that she would like to request staff and legal review at this time.
The Chair requested SHo to initiate the staff and legal review process.
8. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
DH stated that discussion had taken place and this DP needed harmonization with the other similar DPs.
KB asked, with regard to the title, is a /12 or /16 small? DH stated that the authors requested that the word 'or' remained in the policy text for the community to discuss. DH noted the sizes were small, in comparison to all the transfers that have been transacted. He believed the title was fine as-is, and that the community will have to decide which size was to be considered as 'small'. KB acknowledged.
9. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for New Entrants
JS stated that this DP had received a bit of support. He noted it was fairly simple, fair, and technically sound. He stated he would like to request a staff and legal review before moving it forward to RDP status.
The Chair requested SHo to initiate the staff and legal review process.
10. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy
KB stated that he had sent updates to the AC, and the concern of the conflicts with other policies, as discussed. He stated that the policies in conflict need to have the policy shepherds working together to determine commonality. A call had been scheduled with the authors and policy shepherds. He wanted to make sure that there were no concerns with this policy. He noted a good amount of PPML posts on this policy, stating that most of it was discussion about concerns over language - old and new. The authors were quick to help out with clarifications. KB pointed out that once policy has gone to draft, it is in AC's hands to work on it. He wanted to be sure not to co-mingle the changes. He believed that the community perceived that policy text was being written by AC members, and he wanted to be careful of that.
The President pointed out that once a proposal becomes a draft policy, it is under the AC's control. There was nothing wrong with consulting with the authors and community, however, the editor's pen lies with the AC, and not with the original proposer.
OD stated that while that was understood, he has not seen the problem KB described. Working with authors should be easy and it would be a detriment if we created unnecessary friction in process. He believed there was no reason that the AC could not continue to work with the authors. He did not see a problem that needed to be solved.
The Chair stated that he did not believe that we are articulating 'a problem'. We understand the process. He believed KB meant that when the AC was dealing with proposals, and AC member is a shepherd or an author, that we use our hats correctly so members of the community do not get confused.
KB stated that an AC member who was an author working on the text is not showing favoritism - that favoritism is not shown to an AC author. Are they speaking as the author or as an AC member? He wanted it on the record that an author who is an AC member is not allowed to change the text.
11. ARIN-Prop-231: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM
12. Any Other Business
The Chair called for any other business.
ARIN Policies Implemented
Provided for information, the following policies have been implemented:
- Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-day utilization requirement in end-user IPv4 policy. Found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_3.html
- Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out of region use. Found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_5.html
- Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove transfer language which only applied pre-exhaustion of IPv4 pool. Found at: https://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2015_11.html
- Editorial Update to 8.2 Return Language. Found at: http://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/2016-March/030739.html
The Chair's On-the-Docket Report
The Chair noted the suggestion by AP (sent in an email post to the AC) that the On the Docket Report given by the Chair at Public Policy Meetings could include a chart that listed the policies and proposals to the community, for clarity. The Chair stated that this could be done.
Consolidation Process for Similar Proposals
The Chair stated that CT had posted an email to the AC regarding this issue and suggesting a process for doing so. He asked CT to discuss it with the AC.
CT stated that he had looked at the proposals and the objectives of consolidating what was confusing or complicated (to the extent possible) in the NRPM and cleaning it up. He believed that much of the problem in using the Policy Development Process (PDP) , which he was not proposing to modify in any way, was that it has been approached with isolated proposals. To accomplish consolidation within the PDP framework, he believed the AC needed to approach it differently than what was currently done. CT stated that the AC needed to: step back; look at the principles; and, come to agreement on them to figure out the major revisions needed in each major section (for example, transfers or assignments and allocations).
CT proposed that if there were two divergent schools of thought, it would behoove the AC to:
- Discuss them, and let both tracks live, but talk through the principles and what the AC wanted to accomplish;
- Create teams to write the proposals that simplifies the NRPM, or new requirements as case may be;
- Vet the proposals to the larger AC; and,
- Post them to the PPML for community feedback.
He stated that the AC may end up with one proposal for needs based, and one that is not - but both could be presented. They would have been thought through ahead of time. The community would discuss them on the PPML, at the Public Policy Consultations (PPC), and at the Public Policy Meetings (PPM). There would just have been more front-end collaboration as a whole, and within the teams. He suggested that this entail teleconferences and extra meeting time during ARIN 38 to work through it.
CT believed that front-end collaboration would be more efficient and effective, and less stressful for the AC and for the community. The essence of this proposal was upfront work to articulate principles and direction, and breaking into small teams to look at major overhauls, or major simplifications, via extra calls, emails and meeting time in Dallas.
With regard to the upfront work suggested, the Chair asked if there was anything preventing the AC from doing so at this time. Could the work be accomplished the on AC's mailing list?
CT replied that the AC presently has not decided to take it on as a task. What triggers us, as an AC, is a proposal. We do not think over what is needed prior to it. We need to have a moderator and keep it focused on topic and boundaries. Principles by topic can start on the AC's list, but it needs more moderation – set the parameters of what to discuss upfront.
The Chair noted that the AC was not remaining in Dallas after ARIN 38. He had no intention of creating additional days or special meetings. He did not disagree with CT's proposal, but did not see a point in making special arrangements to debate goals that the AC should or might want. He believed that the AC's mailing list is where that should coalesce. He stated that teleconferences were fine as well, but cautioned against a series of calls where the AC just discusses what in what direction should be going.
CT understood and agreed to the extent that if there was extra time in Dallas, it would be beneficial to discuss the proposals and not the principles. He noted that the AC needed to discuss the common objectives that come out of changes or simplification - find ways to team up and move them forward. His concern was the way the AC approached the PDP through isolated proposals. He believed it would not quickly get the proposals to the community. He stated that the AC needed to accelerate the activity and use the PDP in a more collective, upfront way.
AD wanted to make clear that the proposal that turned into DP 2015-5, written by he and SL, was not only written by the two of them. He pointed out that they had spoken with community members years before the DP came about. AD delayed doing so due to the fact that the timing would have been wrong. Informally, he and SL did exactly what CT was suggesting. They collected principles, looked at the direction, fostered community feedback, etc. He stated that DP was not developed in isolation. It was highly collaborative. In the end, SL and AD wrote it together based upon the information collected.
AD also believed that the major issue the AC currently had, was the need for additional community feedback to help the AC take the three proposals and move them to a place where the AC could get them adopted. AD believed that the AC had all it needed and the issue was how it gathered community feedback and put it into action to create an adoptable proposal. He suggested that the AC engage the community in a better way than through the PPML and through the PPMs (which only took place twice a year). He stated that the AC needed to get the community more involved to participate.
CT stated that the AC does not tend to have discussions until proposals are posted to the PPML, and suggested coordinating upfront before putting pen to paper. He acknowledged AD's comments, but noted that the AC has been trying to come up with transfer policies, and the only way to do so more quickly was to have more upfront collaboration and find new ways to engage community.
The President stated that the process of engaging with the community and working ideas through the PDP to successful outcomes was the AC's job. The AC can approach it in any way they desired. To CT points, the President did not believe CT was saying that the AC was doing anything improper in how policy proposals were being developed. Rather, it was difficult for the community, and the AC, to engage without a framework in which to put policy proposals with a small number of choices in each area. For example: one approach would be for the AC to work on three alternatives for future transfer policy. Make each the best it can be, and then have a panel during a PPM to discuss resolving transfers and assignment and allocation policy. Do so in a structure that makes the possible options clear so that community members can speak to a specific proposal.
CT thanked the President and stated that that was precisely what he was trying to convey: to help set a framework so that in each proposal, the community was aware that there are multiple choices. The AC puts forward the best proposal(s) it could, and this would ultimately serve the community well.
KB stated that he disagreed with most of what CT had suggested in his email to the AC on the matter, because he believed it was already being done. He pointed out that the AC has asked the community for the key points they wanted to see. The AC had addressed the extensive overlap of policy proposals. He noted that this was the first time there had been more than two proposals at the same time. The shepherds were working on it and talking outside of the norm to the community on the matter. KB stated he was confused by the CT's request because KB did not want to be in a position where the AC made decisions before the community saw the text. He liked the way the PDP currently worked. The only issue, where multiple policies were concerned, was that the AC needed to spend more due diligence and get together since the policies were so similar. He believed that the AC needed to discuss it via a teleconference, and deal with the issue. KB pointed out that the community would not come to consensus on overarching proposals - an omnibus never worked. There were discussions originally on sections 4 and 8, and the AC could not get around them. There were too many points being touched upon. He believed that the AC could move ahead with policy changes that were small.
CT stated that he understood KB's concern and recognized that KB had a much longer time of experience with community. CT believed if the AC could to get together and articulate, that the policies would be much simpler and less wordy. He believed it would be a successful effort. He did not believe that chipping away in silos would be any more successful. He noted that he was into his term as an AC member for one and a half years, and he was there to assist in facilitating NRPM simplification, and meet changing needs more quickly. He did not believe the AC was accomplishing that task. He noted that it was taking a long time to come up with useful policies. He suggested that the AC experiment with his idea and try it for a few months – if it didn't work then so be it.
The Chair stated that he was not opposed to the suggestions CT proposed. As Chair, he had to make sure 'the car is running and you can drive'. He noted there were a number of features: set up separate conference bridges to discuss items, conduct panels at PPMs, utilize online polling, and the AC's mailing list was at the AC's disposal to make things happen. The Chair asked 'Is the car broken?' If the AC needed other features, he was open to discussing them. If the AC wanted to move forward with the features at hand, he supported it. As AD had pointed out, AD and SL had done just that. The Chair stated he was happy to facilitate getting together. He wanted the AC to think about whether the car was broken versus the AC wanting to coalesce around an idea with what is at their disposal.
CT stated that if the AC left it to a subgroup, the AC will have the same problem of multiple proposals siloed, overlap and conflict, and dragging the process out. CT believed that if one needed to solve a business problem in whatever the field may be, one needed the right process to attack the problem. He was not suggesting any changes to the PDP. How the AC utilized the PDP needed to change a bit in order to make the process more efficient and timely in the timeframe the AC currently found itself. CT believed it was necessary, and that it would be beneficial to do so as the AC as a whole, and not as a subset of the AC.
The Chair called for further comments.
RS acknowledged CT's concerns and believed that certainly having parallel proposals created confusion and resulted in consensus not being gained. He echoed KB concerns and cautions. He noted that a previous AC member had written omnibus proposals, but they did not gain any traction because everyone found things they could dislike. He believed that the AC needed to be careful not to head down that path. DH agreed. RS stated that his concern was that the AC may spend time and energy and be no better off.
JS stated that CT was suggesting a subset of the AC to go off and deal with things – one of which may be the 3 separate overlapping policies regarding needs assessment. Is the group partisan to this matter, or not partisan to the matter?
CT clarified that he wanted the AC to step back and formulate a proposal for each. He was not suggesting an omnibus proposal in any way. He wanted this done as the AC as a whole, and not as a subset. He wanted the AC to think about what they were trying to achieve, what the objectives and the philosophical tracks were, and address them.
The Chair stated he was in support of the AC getting together and figuring out a common ground, but was there anything preventing them from doing so on AC list as a group right now? CT stated that he believed the AC could, but the importance of doing it as an endorsed activity will be taken more seriously. Otherwise, some would ignore it and some would work on it. He reiterated his suggestion of trying it for a few months to see if it benefited the AC. CT stated he would like to see structure and leadership around that idea. He was happy to take the leadership role if they wanted him to, and was not shirking coordination responsibility. However, he wanted buy-in from the AC to try it.
The Chair believed most were on board with simplification. He stated the topic would be taken to the AC's list to see if a framework could be created that the AC could get on board with; and, if there was momentum, then work hard on it. One potential flaw was that not everyone would agree on a path forward. CT asked if the Chair meant agreeing on a process, or on proposal text? The Chair stated he meant agreeing on both. He noted that there are many sidebars, and suggested the AC form committees. He stated it was a matter of coming to agreement on the way forward.
ARIN 38 PPM in Dallas, TX
The Chair stated that the AC had previously suggested that the policy discussions extend into the Friday of the PPM. He noted that this would take place, and that the AC's meeting would be held after the end of the PPM.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:40 p.m. EDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by JS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.