Friday, 21 October 2016
Advisory Council Attendees:
- Dan Alexander, Chair (DA)
- Tina Morris, Vice Chair (TM)
- Cathy Aronson (CA)
- Owen DeLong (OD)
- Andrew Dul (AD)
- David Farmer (DF)
- David Huberman (DH)
- Scott Leibrand (SL)
- Milton Mueller (MM)
- Amy Potter (AP)
- Leif Sawyer (LS)
- Rob Seastrom (RS)
- John Springer (JS)
- Chris Tacit (CT)
- Sean Hopkins
- Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
- John Curran (President), President & CEO
- Nate Davis (ND), COO
- John Sweeting (JSw), Senior Dir., Registration Services
ARIN General Counsel
- Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.
ARIN Board Observer(s):
- Paul Andersen (PA)
- Bill Sandiford (BS)
The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:55 p.m. CDT. The presence of a quorum was noted.
2. Agenda Review
The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council, and called for any comments. PA requested that an item be added to Any Other Business with regard to a concern from a community member on conflict of interest. The Chair agreed to add the topic to Any Other Business.
SL asked if Item 5 should be discussed after the discussion of the recommended draft policies, to which it was related, took place. The Chair noted this had been discussed previously. DH stated that, regardless of order, the first related draft policy or recommended draft policy would prompt discussion about the policies compatibility. DF asked that compatibility discussions occur with the least popular draft policy.
RS requested Item 5 be moved to after Item 12. The Chair agreed to do so.
3. Approval of the Minutes
It was moved by JS, and seconded by CT, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 15 September 2016, as written."
The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.
The motion carried with no objections.
4. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients)
CA stated that she and CT had not yet formally discussed this policy. CT stated that he believed it should advance to Last Call, with an editorial typographical correction, as the recommended draft policy (RDP) refers to Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) Section 8.4, bullet 3 - not bullet 4.
It was moved by CA, and seconded by CT, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council advances Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2 to Last Call."
The Chair asked if the editorial change was indeed just a correction. CT stated that it was. DH requested that the floor count for the RDP be read. The Chair noted that there was 130 total (in-room and remotely). There were 46 in favor of advancing the RDP, and one against.
The motion carried with unanimously via roll call vote.
The Chair stated that item 5 would be moved to after item 12 on the agenda, as previously requested.
The Chair resumed the agenda to begin with item 6.
6. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy
AP stated that she and AD had not yet discussed this RDP. AD requested that the floor count be read. The Chair noted that there was 136 total (in-room and remotely). There were 46 in favor of advancing the RDP, and one against.
It was moved by AD, and seconded by OD, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council advances Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1 to Last Call."
The Chair asked if there was any information regarding the one person who was against the RDP. AD stated that the only item that was raised against the RDP was the question of stranded resources with no mechanism for transferring them, although a return would be an option. AD stated that if the Council wanted to deal with that potential issue, they could do so after the RDP moved forward.
AP noted that those voting in favor were specifically in favor of advancement, not just the RDP itself. OD asked if the resources in question are typically covered under an RSA. The President stated that he believed they would be covered under an RSA in all cases. OD noted that if resources cease to be of value, the organization holding them was unlikely to continue to pay for them. The Chair called for additional comments. There were no further comments.
The motion carried with unanimously via roll call vote.
7. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-2: Change Timeframes for All IPv4 Requests to 24 Months
The Chair called for comments. SL stated that he believed that this RDP needed to move forward. TM noted that with 136 people participating in-room and remotely, 46 were in favor of advancing the RDP, and one was against.
It was moved by SL, and seconded by TM, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council advances Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-2 to Last Call."
JS stated that if the Board ratified 2016-2, then 2016-4 should be slightly altered so as not to conflict with it, but he would support the motion.
AD asked why the staff and legal review of 2016-2 stated that up to six months would be required for staff to implement it. The President stated that the policy change would result in a substantial number of updates to the: documentation; web content; ARIN Online application screens and forms; templates used for automation; as well as training and outreach materials. He stated that the timeframe had no impact on the value of implementation.
The Chair asked what was the dependency between 2016-2 and 2016-4. JS stated that 2016-2 contained a clause stating that 2016-4 would need to be edited to conform with it.
The President stated that if 2016-2 was advanced to Last Call, then 2016-4 should either be edited or also advanced to Last Call. He stated that once an RDP is in Last Call, it should be considered by the Council to already be implemented for purposes of managing conflicts with other draft policies.
JS asked if the President recommended not advancing 2016-4. The Chair stated that the Council had 60 days to act upon the RDP, should it need more time.
The President replied that as soon as 2016-2 was advanced to Last Call, all proposals, draft policies, and recommended draft policies should be made compatible. He stated that he did not believe 2016-2 and 2016-4 were incompatible, but if they were, they should not both put into Last Call.
SL stated that changes have already been identified, and consensus has been reached. He stated that if 2016-2 was advanced to Last Call, the Council should make an editorial change to 2016-4 for conformance and move it forward.
JS asked if existing text could be editorially changed by staff. The President stated that it is up to the AC. Since the RDP had made it to this stage, and was supported by the community that had had an opportunity to comment on all aspects. MM stated that he did not see the need to modify 2016-4.
JS asked if he could state his preference. The Chair noted that he would support that.
The motion to advance 2016-2 to Last Call carried unanimously via roll call vote.
The President stated that, at this time, if another RDP stated to use something completely different – a 36-month for example, then it could not be moved to Last Call now that 2016-2 is in Last Call. He pointed out that moving an incompatible RDP to Last Call would be out of order. The Chair agreed.
8. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
The Chair called for comments. DH stated he was not certain how to proceed. The Chair stated that this was merely an opportunity for an update, and that no motion was required. He further stated that any and all agenda items can be discussed at length, and that he understood there were many items to catch up on.
JS requested that the floor count be read. The Chair noted a total of 122, in-room and remotely. There were 27 in favor of the Council continuing to work on the draft policy, and one against.
DH stated that the staff and legal review was benign, and that the policy text met the principles, but it conflicted with items to be discussed later in this agenda. The Chair stated that if the Council were to move the draft policy to recommended draft policy status, it would still need to be presented before advancing it to Last Call. He noted that it would be fine to leave the draft policy as-is. DH stated that he could envision it being abandoned at that time.
It was moved by DF, and seconded by OD, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council recommends Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3 for adoption."
The Chair called for comments. OD stated that he would like to abandon some of the RDPs in favor of this draft policy, as it this draft policy was more favorable despite it being in draft policy status. He stated that moving it forward after a Public Policy Meeting (PPM), or Public Policy Consultation (PPC) made sense.
SL stated the he would oppose the motion, and that the motion would be better suited after the discussion of 2016-5 later in the meeting. The Chair stated that leaving the draft policy as-is until after other discussions would be no different than voting on it now. SL believed that if the Council wanted to advance this draft policy, doing so at the end of the discussions would be more favorable.
The Chair asked how SL's suggestion would work, procedurally. The President stated that if the Council wished to reconsider a discussion of something already addressed in a meeting, they would need a two-thirds vote, or the Chair could bring it back for discussion it so long as there objection from the AC.
CT asked DF to withdraw the motion, as he believed it was out of sequence. JS pointed out that DF had previously stated that he would move to advance 2016-3 if the show of support was unanimous, but that was not the case. JS further believed that the RDPs up for discussion should be considered first.
The President stated that, generally speaking, if a Draft Policy is favorable to the Council they should advance it; but, as noted earlier, they should consider any RDPs in Last Call to already be implemented for purposes of resolving conflicting language. He further stated that, as such, it would behoove the Council to consider RDPs on their agenda first.
MM stated that advancing 2016-3 might pre-empt other votes.
CT stated that DF could still withdraw the motion. DF replied that he made the motion because he considered 2016-3 to be the best solution, and he believed that the community believed this as well. DF stated that the floor count for 2016-5 showed more opposition than that of 2016-3, and that moving 2016-3 forward at this time would show more progress to the community.
AD stated that while opposition differed between 2016-3 and 2016-5, the questions posed differed as well. He believed 2016-5 was more encompassing, and put both ARIN and the community in a better position.
OD noted that if DF had not moved to advance 2016-3, he would have. He pointed out that it had support, and met the principles. OD asked if DF would consider tabling the motion until later in this meeting. DF agreed.
It was moved by SL, and seconded by RS, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council tables the motion to recommend Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3 for adoption."
The motion carried with no objections.
DH asked when 2016-3 would be presented if it moved forward, and when did the Council need to decide whether or not to hold a PPC. The Chair stated that the Council needed to decide on whether or not holding a PPC would be necessary at their November teleconference.
9. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for New Entrants
JS requested that the floor count be read. The Chair noted that there was a total of 124 in-room and remotely. There was 38 in favor of advancing the RDP, with none against.
It was moved by JS, and seconded by SL, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council advances Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4 to Last Call."
The Chair called for comments. JS stated that the RDP met the principles, and that he would support the motion. The Chair asked if editorial changes were needed with regard to NRPM Section 4.
SL stated that 2016-4 stated that some of the text in Sections 4.2.2 and 4.2.3 should be stricken upon adoption of 2016-2. JS stated that he would like staff to make the appropriate edits. DH asked if the RDP addressed SW's comments in the policy implementation and experience report. JSw confirmed that it did.
The motion carried with 13 in favor, and one abstention (AP) via roll call vote. AP stated that she abstained due to a potential conflict of interest.
10. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy
LS stated that he and DH had not yet discussed this RDP, but a lively discussion was held amongst the other policy shepherds. LS stated that TPIA and MDN policy was brought up as a potential conflict, but he and SL had not found such a conflict.
The President stated that the NRPM should be considered as a whole. The fact that the TPIA policy is in Section 4, provided a framework for seeing how something is utilized. 2016-5 removes reference to allocation policy, however, staff still needed clarity on how to handle a TPIA network for purposes of determining when an allocation is considered utilized. The 50% overall utilization requirement would become formal, should 2016-5 be implemented, but staff processing would be unchanged as staff understands the rationale for TPIA allocated blocks to be considered fully utilized on assignment to equipment. The President further stated that a definition of TPIA access network that included this concept may be well-suited for Section 2, as it was generally helpful to define architectural concepts.
LS noted that current policy stated that recipients and sources of transfers must follow ARIN policy. SL stated that this policy explicitly referenced documentation that needed to be provided with regard to the 50% utilization requirement and officer attestation. He believed 2016-5 was the best chance that the Council had of simplifying transfer policy; and, there was no reason not to send this policy to Last Call if the TPIA, MDN, and cable issues had been addressed.
DH asked if the President was willing to state that in any case where a requestor needs to reference text that exists in NRPM Section 4 to make a case for meeting policy, staff would consider that text. The President stated that he was willing to state that. He stated that TPIA could be defined in Section 2, but that staff knew what a TPIA network was.
AD stated that 2015-2's replacement of Section 8.4, bullet 3, would need to be reflected in 2016-5's rewrite of 8.4. The President stated that if both RDPs are implemented, staff would need to mirror the change and that a footnote should be added to 2016-5 to that affect. AP noted that a similar footnote, with regard to 2016-1, would be in order. The President noted that Last Call may result in some RDPs being eliminated, but regardless, staff needed a note saying when conforming changes in the process of implementation would be needed by staff.
AD stated that he believed 2016-5 was the best step forward, as it was a comprehensive middle ground supported by the community. OD stated that he would oppose any potential motion to advance 2016-5, and prefers 2016-3. He believes footnotes may not be enough to address conflicts between the RDPs, and that the Council should study them further.
DF stated that he too would oppose such a motion, and would prefer to see 2016-5 and 2016-3 presented to the community again. He stated that 2016-5 was a good policy, but it was a large change. He believed that if the community supported it now, they would continue to do so in February.
DH stated that he would abstain from such a motion, as the community had already spoken; and, the Council still needed to decide what they were advancing to Last Call. The President asked DF if he believed 2016-5 and 2016-3 were incompatible. DF stated that while they did not textually conflict, they might have conflicting philosophical points of view. The President agreed, but noted that advancing a textually compatible draft policy might not be worth halting discussion. MM agreed, stating that his concerns had been met and that 2016-3 could be modified later if 2016-5 was advanced to Last Call.
It was moved by AD, and seconded by CA, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council advances Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5 to Last Call."
AD requested that an editorial update be made to the RDP in the Comments section, reading:
"Recommended Draft Policy 2015-2 includes a change to NRPM Section 8.4, bullet 3. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5 should be updated to include the modified Section 8.4, bullet 3. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy includes the addition of a bullet to Sections 8.3 and 8.4. Should 2016-5 be implemented, the aforementioned changes from 2015-2 and 2016-1 should be incorporated into Section 4 as appropriate."
CT stated that he would propose a solution to the TPIA definition issue. He further stated that 2016-5 was the first draft policy to open broad discussion, so its measure of opposition was not a persuasive argument. The Chair noted that with 123 in the room and remotely, 33 were in favor of advancing the RDP, and 6 were against.
DF asked if the "or" clause was necessary in 2016-5. DH replied that because the President had stated that staff understands TPIA clearly, 2016-3 is irrelevant and the "or" clause was unnecessary. DF stated that he would like more discussion on the matter.
AP stated that it may be possible for 2016-5 to implemented, and for the community to want modifications made to 2016-3. DH asked how many votes would be needed to pass the motion. The President stated that eight votes would be needed.
DF pointed out that if 2016-5 moves forward, any block size may be used, and if 2016-3 passes, only up to a /16 may be used. SL stated that 2016-5 also severs a link to Section 4 in Section 8, which would allow for more simplification.
The Chair stated that 2016-5 does detach the two sections, but if TPIA language was removed from Section 4 there would be nothing else relating to it.
The President stated that there may be other architectural terms elsewhere in NRPM that should be made into defined terms – possible examples include virtualization terminology. He agreed with SL that this RDP did not just address the /16 threshold, it also allowed for more clarification and simplification of Section 4.
DH stated that those definitions could still be worked on. DF stated he would support the motion.
The motion carried with 12 in favor, one against (OD), and one abstention (AP) via roll call vote. AP noted that she abstained due to a potential conflict of interest.
11. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM
DF stated that he had submitted updated text to the AC's list and Wiki.
PA expressed concern with any text that seeks to create, or force, a fee. SL stated that the definition of Community Networks (CNs) was not being altered, and that CN policy was originally meant to have them be treated as end-users. PA noted that if the intent of 2016-6 is to treat CNs as end-users for fee reasons, the Board may consider that problematic, and the Council should clarify their intent with staff. DF stated that the policy's reasoning for treating CNs as end-users was not entirely about fees.
The President stated that recent changes made to 2016-6 appear editorial, and he did not see any issues with current language, but he asked that the Council explain why CNs should remain end-users, for transparency.
The Chair noted that with 129 in the room and remotely, there were 18 were in favor of advancing the RDP, and 0 against.
It was moved by DF, and seconded by CA, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council advances Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6 to Last Call."
The motion carried with 13 in favor, and one abstention (MM), via roll call vote. MM noted that he abstained due to a potential conflict of interest.
The Chair called for recess at 4:30 p.m. CDT.
Counsel and BS left the meeting at 4:32 p.m. CDT
The Chair resumed the meeting at 4:42 p.m. CDT
12. ARIN-Prop-232: Integration of Community Networks Into Existing ISP Policy
RS stated that there were no updates, but that the proposal appeared to meet the criteria for good policy.
It was moved by RS, and seconded by DF, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ARIN-Prop-232 as a Draft Policy."
The Chair called for discussion. The President asked if this proposal was clear and in scope. OD stated that it was.
The motion carried with unanimously, via roll call vote.
It was then moved by OD, and seconded by CA, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council abandons Draft Policy ARIN-2016-7."
(ARIN- 2016-7 being the next draft policy number to be assigned, it would be applied ARIN-Prop-232, moved above to Draft Policy status).
The Chair called for discussion. The President stated that if the draft policy contained a valid problem statement, then it represented a problem. If there is a solution to the problem, the Council should work on a better policy.
DF stated that he would oppose the motion, and could not abandon something without evidence for lack of support. JS agreed with DF, stating that an assessment had not been done with regard to 2016-7's support, but he would be in favor of discussing the technical soundness of the draft policy.
CA stated that she was in favor of abandoning 2016-7 because the existing CN policy had not yet been used. OD stated that valid or not, the draft policy's problem statement was clear.
RS believed that the fact that the Council was handling contradictory draft policies indicated that the bar for what may be accepted as a draft policy may be set too low.
SL stated that he was unsure about whether or not to support the motion but would like, at the least, to have it posted to the PPML for CN operators to have a chance to speak to the draft.
DH believed that the problem statement was invalid, and it was an attempt to test how quickly the community could simplify policy.
CT stated that the Council was obligated to seek community input in a manner that is respectful to the Policy Development Process (PDP).
The President stated that while the Council may abandon the very new draft policy 2016-7, it would be prudent to allow for comments on the PPML to be heard, before doing so. He further stated that should the Council abandon the draft after allowing for PPML comments, as the author always had the option to appeal the decision. The Chair agreed.
OD stated that the draft was within the definition for submission, and that was where the
'low bar' lay. He further stated that if the Council was going to abandon 2016-7, it may as well do so now.
TM stated that it is likely to be abandoned, but there was no issue with allowing PPML feedback beforehand.
DF stated that prior PDP iterations would allow a better mechanism for comment, and believed that the Council abandoning 2016-7 would be disingenuous.
The President stated that the fact that a policy remained unused may not indicate that the policy was unnecessary - it may simply be too hard with which to comply. He further suggested that while abandoning 2016-7, and taking on a proposal to eliminate the CN policy was a possibility, working on the proposal as-written was another option. While the Council might fail to write something more clear, not working on it at all might be disingenuous.
OD believed that rewriting 2016-7 would be more disingenuous than abandoning it. The President suggested that 2016-7's first sentence could be worked on to clarify the author's intent to simply have clear CN policy. OD stated that the problem statement was not the reason behind his motion.
The motion to abandon Draft Policy 2016-7 failed with 12 against, and two in favor (OD, CA), via roll call.
The President asked that OD work to clarify or improve the problem statement. OD stated that it would go as-is to the PPML for community feedback.
The Chair stated that Item 5 would be discussed at this time, as requested earlier.
5. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified Requirements for Demonstrated Need for IPv4 Transfers
It was moved by CT, and seconded by CA, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council abandons Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7."
The Chair called for discussion. RS stated that this RDP had less support than the other related transfer policies. The Chair noted that with 137 in the room and remote, 12 were in favor of advancing the RDP, and 35 were against.
JS stated that he would like to review the transcript before abandoning the policy. OD stated he was persuaded by the lack of community support, and noted that 2015-7 also had not gained support on the PPML.
TM noted that fear of fraud was a reason brought up against 2015-7. JS noted that the fear of fraud was not evidence of existing fraud. OD asked how the community would know if there is fraud before the RDP was implemented. JS stated that if the Council is not convinced that the RDP would result in fraud, they would be ill-advised to abandon it.
CT stated that the community appears to be on a continuum from hardcore needs to a more relaxed policy; and he believed it was time to abandon 2015-7. SL agreed, stating that lack of support and lack of compatibility with 2016-3 and 2016-5 were reason enough to abandon the RDP. DF agreed. MM stated that the RDP opened the door for fraud, but he did not support abandoning it.
The President stated that if the Council did not abandon 2015-7, they must let the community know why - whether it is simply to test the policy on new entrants only, or for some other reason. He further stated that the Council should either modify or abandon the RDP.
The Chair pointed out that this RDP would revert to just 'draft policy' status in December, if no action was taken.
LS stated that this RDP had more opposition than the other three related draft policies put together. AP stated that the fraud concern is legitimate, as there had already been an increase in registration hijacking. MM stated that hijackers were using existing policy. AP stated that there may be others awaiting relaxed enough policy before they act. She further stated that there were already organizations willing to falsify registration data to sell resources. They may only try until they are caught, but they did exist. JS stated that he was swayed by the incompatibility argument.
The motion to abandon Recommended Draft Policy 2015-7 carried unanimously via roll call vote.
The Chair stated too the motion from Item 8 off the table and stated discussion would resume at this time.
8. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers
It was moved by SL, and seconded by DF, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council withdraws the motion to recommend Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3 for adoption."
The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that because 2016-7 had been advanced to Draft Policy status, 2016-3 is incompatible. DF stated that he would be willing to modify 2016-3 to make it compatible. The Chair called for objections to DF's suggestion. OD objected. He noted that advancing 2016-3 did not pose any issues, but deciding based on the motion advancing 2016-5 to Last Call, would be ill-advised. The President stated that either the Council should vote to table the motion, or they should vote to advance 2016-3.
The Chair called the vote.
The motion to withdraw advancing Draft Policy 2016-3 to Recommended Draft Policy status carried with 13 in favor, and one against (OD).
DH asked what should occur next. AD stated that the Council should leave it as-is (as a Draft Policy) or move otherwise. The President stated that if the AC advanced 2016-3 at a later time, it should presume that everything currently in Last Call has already been implemented.
OD stated that doing so would require a re-write of the text. The President agreed.
DF suggested that relaxations, mentioned earlier by AP with regard to 2016-3, be incorporated, and the Draft Policy be advanced. The Chair stated that 2016-3 could be worked on, and discussed further.
DH noted that large changes had been moved to Last Call, and it may behoove the Council to await implementation and feedback before altering 2016-3. The President noted that by refining the text, and presenting it in April 2017 as a set of further changes, there may or may not have been enough feedback on 2016-3 to make more informed policy.
JS stated that 2016-3 and 2016-5 had been discussed by the community the previous day during ARIN 38, and that 2016-3 was fine to leave as-is. SL noted that modifications to 2016-3 could alter its intent entirely.
13. Any Other Business
The Chair called for any other business items.
Conflict of Interest Concern
PA stated that during the Open Microphone session at ARIN 38, a member of the community raised concerns with how conflicts of interest are handled within the AC. He stated that the Board had no concerns with how AC members handle themselves, but there was no current clear documentation for the disclosure process. He asked that the AC work with Counsel and staff on documentation review and modification.
The President stated that some meeting attendees noted that AC members had quite a bit of microphone time, and there would be concerns if any of them had other interests (for example, financial interests) that were not known to the community.
DH requested an Executive Session on the topic of conflicts of interest. The Chair called for objections. Hearing none, the Chair called for an Executive Session at 5:35 p.m. The AC exited the Executive Session at 5:43 p.m. CDT. TM and PA left at this time.
The Chair noted an action item for him to work with Counsel and staff on a review of the disclosure and conflict of interest documentation for AC members.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:44 p.m. CDT. CA moved to adjourn, seconded by OD. The meeting adjourned with no objections.