Thursday, 21 September 2017
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)
- Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
- John Curran, President & CEO
- Nate Davis (ND), COO
- Sean Hopkins (SHo), Policy Analyst
- Leslie Nobile (LN), Senior Director, Global Registry Knowledge
- John Sweeting (JSw), Senior Director, Registration Services
ARIN Board Observers
- Paul Andersen, Chair
ARIN General Counsel
- Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.
The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged that Tina Morris would be delayed.
2. Agenda Review
The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for comments. There were no comments.
3. Approval of the Minutes
It was moved by OD, and seconded by JP, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 17 August 2017, as written."
The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.
The motion carried with no objections.
DF joined at this time (4:06 p.m. EDT). The Chair briefed him on the agenda item currently under discussion.
4. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-3: Update to NRPM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation
AP stated it was reposted to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). She stated she is hoping for more discussion at ARIN 40; and noted that the policy will also be discussed with law enforcement there.
5. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers
AW stated that there had been some discussion on the PPML, generally against the policy, with only little support. She noted legal concerns raised and that other RIRs do not have any policies in place to conduct transfers with NIRs.
OD stated he was fine to leave on docket and then abandon it, or abandon it now.
The Chair stated that ARIN 40 was two weeks from now. This policy 2017-4 are both on the ARIN 40 agenda in the same policy block; however, it was not a requirement that the AC needed to leave this policy on the AC’s docket.
AW stated she did not want to present it at ARIN 40 if it will be abandoned. OD suggested he would make the motion to abandon and see if anyone would second it. The Chair agreed.
Counsel joined at this time (4:10 p.m. EDT).
It was moved by OD:
The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers’.
There was no second to the motion to abandon. The Chair stated that this draft policy would therefore be presented for discussion at ARIN 40.
6. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers
JP stated that he and RS had not had an opportunity to discuss this policy further. It would be presented and discussed at ARIN 40.
DH stated he had attended LACNIC 28 recently in Montevideo. A similar policy was presented in their region, for the sixth time, with 2 to 1 against and with strong abstentions. He stated that the policy was uni-directional. The community was split between having a uni-directional policy, or having a bi-directional policy. He noted that LACNIC members were not at a point where they could make that decision.
The Chair asked, for clarity, if 2017-6 and 2017-4 were indeed in the same policy block on the ARIN 40 agenda. SHo confirmed that they were.
7. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
LS stated that this policy had gone through a number of revisions and now the text has a good basis for community support, it is a sound policy with no negative comments from the staff and legal review.
RS joined at this time (4:15 pm EDT). The Chair briefed him on the agenda item currently under discussion.
It was moved by LS, and seconded by OD, that:
“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements’ for adoption.”
The Chair called for discussion. LS stated that concerns from feedback received had been addressed and subsequent revisions were made.
JSp stated that the policy text had started out as a proposal to change the registration requirement for IPv4 and IPv6. Along the way, the community had voiced against changing the IPv4 requirements. Now, the policy is written for IPv6 only. JSp stated that the policy is still carrying a lot of legacy referential text which is now not applicable. He was interested in why it was not removed.
LS explained that the remaining legacy language is there to describe the problem statement and the author’s comments were left as-is, which was the rationale behind why the author submitted the proposal. LS noted that it was unnecessary to remove the language, and there is nothing in policy statement that contains text with regard to IPv4.
JSp noted that the staff and legal review focused only on the policy statement. He stated that if the AC is being asked to approve that the policy proposal’s policy statement is fair and impartial and sound, then he would support it as-is.
The motion carried with all in favor, (DA, OD, AD, DF, DH, AM, AP, JP, LS, RS, JS, CT, AW, CW) via roll call vote.
Tina Morris joined at this time (4:20 p.m. EDT). The Chair briefed him on the agenda item currently under discussion.
8. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the Definition of Community Network
DF that there had been discussion on the PPML, on and off, over the last couple of weeks. He stated the policy would be presented and discussed at ARIN 40 as a draft policy and that he hoped to come out of it with a final version. DF stated he believed that final staff and legal reviews were pushed out before Public Policy Meetings (PPM) and asked if one could be done to publish for the upcoming PPM. The Chair explained that staff and legal reviews were not automatically conducted before PPM’s. The Policy Shepherds need to request it of the Chair, in advance, and the request is then forwarded to staff.
DF understood and stated that AD had also expressed interest in the staff and legal review. He asked AD for his thoughts. AD stated that he expected there would be changes to the text, and if a staff and legal review could begin it would be beneficial. He believed the policy text to potentially have a positive outcome at the ARIN 41 PPM, in 2018.
The Chair stated that a staff and legal review needs a two-week window to be conducted, and that ARIN 40 is only two weeks away at this point. Staff and Counsel are currently very busy at this time, and it would be best to have the review conducted after ARIN 40. The Chair stated that the policy shepherds can wait to incorporate feedback from ARIN 40. DF and AD agreed.
The President reiterated that there was a heavy work load for staff and legal at this time. He advised that it may be best to either hold requesting a staff and legal review until after ARIN 40, or after ARIN 40 with any revised policy text. He stated that it would be awkward to provide a staff and legal review which requires revised text the very morning of the Public Policy Meeting. All agreed.
With regard to the motion to advance 2017-6, the Chair stated that the Shepherds needed to send notice to SHo so that he could publish the notification to the PPML by next Monday. They agreed to do so.
9. Any Other Business
The Chair called for any other business.
- Show of Hands at ARIN 40. The Chair reviewed the standard approach for a show of hands at the PPM to the AC. He stated that recommended draft policies are given a show of hands. Exceptions to this would be the policies that are not of recommended draft status for which the AC would like community input.
RS stated the Shepherds would need to anticipate the community’s thoughts prior to the PPM, in order to ask questions on any of those exceptions. He noted that if the AC knew the sticking points, they could ask questions on the PPML prior to the PPM. The Chair stated the AC should feel free to post questions to the PPML. He noted that feedback could also be garnered at the microphone during ARIN 40, but that there will be no show of hands.
DF asked if the AC should consider whether to ask for a ‘support for continued work’ on Draft Policy 2017-6, since it was not abandoned. He stated that he would like to hear the community’s feedback on it. The Chair clarified to DF that DF would like data since the draft policy is likely to be abandoned. DF confirmed, stating that if there is significant quantifiable support, then he would be reluctant to abandon the draft policy. The Chair saw no issue with requesting support as long as the Shepherds agree and incorporate the request into their presentation, and into the show of hands.
The Board Chair suggested that the slides reiterate the problem statement to the community, for clarity. The AC Chair stated that the sooner the Shepherds can craft the slides for review and the AC’s feedback, the better.
OD stated, as a point of information, that there were two expressions of support on the PPML – one of which was from the author who had made the motion to abandon that did not get seconded.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:36 p.m. EDT. CT moved to adjourn, seconded by CW. The meeting adjourned with no objections.