Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council
Friday, 06 October 2017
San Jose, California
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)
- Sean Hopkins
- Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
- John Curran, President & CEO
- Nate Davis (ND), COO
- Sean Hopkins (SHo), Policy Analyst
- John Sweeting (JSw), Senior Director, Registration Services
ARIN General Counsel
- Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.
The Chair called the meeting to order at 2:34 p.m. PDT. The presence of a quorum was noted.
2. Agenda Review
The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for comments. DH requested that a review of JSw's Policy Experience Report be added to Any Other Business. The Chair agreed to do so. AD requested that a discussion about the Number Resource Policy Manual's (NRPM) Section 4 'clean-up' also be added to Any Other Business. The Chair agreed to do so.
3. Approval of the Minutes
It was moved by OD, and seconded by JS, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 21 September 2017, as written."
The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.
The motion carried with no objections.
4. Outstanding AC Expense Reports
The Chair noted that JP had an outstanding expense report. JP stated he had recently obtained everything needed to submit his expense report and would do so shortly.
5. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-3: Update to NRPM 3.6: Annual Whois POC Validation
AP stated that she and AM had received good feedback from the community during ARIN 40, and also in the Law Enforcement Agency (LEA) discussion prior to the meeting. This feedback included modifying the problem statement, adding reassignments to the policy statement, and minor work surrounding the removal of ARIN Online account access for unresponsive invalid points of contact (POCs). AP stated that she intends to work on it further, and to send a revision shortly to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) for community feedback.
The Chair asked if a staff and legal review would be appropriate after that revision. AP stated that it would.
DH asked if the revision would provide the backing that the President needed to address issues with the largest users of the Shared Whois Project (SWIP). The President responded that it would depend upon the level of conversation and escalation that the Council would like between staff and these organizations. He stated that if there was to be an escalation process, the requirement for compliance needed to be clearly specified in the resulting policy.
DH asked if that need should be handled in the revision that AP referred to, or if it could be addressed separately. AP stated that handling that concern separately would be best and that LEA representatives appear happy with the feedback. They have shown no concerns for a slightly less aggressive policy being moved forward. Therefore, going back to them with difficult changes would not be a good way forward.
JS asked if AP had captured the varying opinions at the microphone, during ARIN 40, over whether or not current text codifies operational practice. AP stated that she would be working to codify current operational practice, and will work with staff to adjust it further, as needed.
DF believed that LEA representatives would like this draft policy moved forward, and that other pieces that need addressing should not be bundled with the revisions underway.
CW asked if LEA representatives intended to have these changes be incremental, and if LEA representatives would likely follow up with a stricter proposal, if 2017-3 passes with a less strict approach. AP stated that yes, LEA representatives are seeking an incremental approach.
The President stated that the policy shepherds should proceed with the PDP as they normally would, and that it is the feedback received during the presentation of the policy that should guide the policy work. The Chair agreed.
AD stated that the Council should move forward, and asked why AP would be adding reassignments back into the text of the draft policy. AP stated that numerous requests came to the microphone for reinstating reassignments into the text. DF stated that current NRPM definitions of reassignment and reallocations should be revisited. AD stated that he disagreed with adding reassignments to the text.
AM believed that the majority of comments at the microphone were not requesting reassignments be reinstated, and agreed with DF. She stated that the language describing reassignments and reallocations needed work.
AP stated that she had no issues with forgoing the reinstatement of reassignments into the policy text. JP stated that many individuals came forward with desired improvements, and that those individuals would likely remain involved in the process.
OD stated that because some organizations rely on POC validation to handle many POC issues, removing reassignments can cause damage to those organizations and, as such, he was against the removal. AD stated that that issue may be addressed separately by requiring validation on entry into the database. OD stated that until such a solution was presented formally, he would be opposed to the draft policy unless it included reassignments.
6. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers
AW stated that the community and mailing list had shown no support for the proposal, and many stated that it would do more harm than good to the community.
It was moved by AW, and seconded by OD, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council abandons "Draft Policy ARIN-2017-6: Improve Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers."
The Chair called for discussion. There were no further comments.
The motion carried with all in favor, via roll call vote.
7. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers
RS stated that he had previously noted that a staff and legal review had not yet been harmonized with the current text. He further stated that the draft policy had underwhelming support, and that he would invite other opportunities.
It was moved by JP, and seconded by LS, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council abandons "Draft Policy ARIN-2017-4: Remove Reciprocity Requirement for Inter-RIR Transfers".
The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that he recalled comments asking for the removal of a formula, but the original policy concept was to allow LACNIC and AFRINIC to receive resources and it evolved to containing the formula, as currently written. He further stated that he did not hear any mass negative opinion of the concept.
RS stated that he did not hear support, and while it might help to revise the draft policy to remove the math, the draft policy seems unable to draw consensus.
AW stated that other RIRs were in support of the draft policy, and while ARIN commenters were against the formula, which was distracting, they were in support of the concept.
DH stated that there was no need to move the draft policy forward right now, as AFRINIC and LACNIC do not seem to be able to gain consensus on the one-way inter-RIR transfer proposals in their regions. TM noted that AFRINIC's one-way inter-RIR transfer policy had, in fact, expired.
OD stated that there was no rush to abandon the draft policy, but that he would support the motion. He stated that if the draft policy were to continue it should do so without the math.
DF stated that he would rather move the draft policy to plain English and circulate it; and, if there was still no support, he would support abandoning it.
JP stated that RS had mentioned that the draft policy was, thus far, not improving incrementally.
CW stated that while the draft policy may not be good, it addresses a historical imbalance that needs to be addressed. LS stated that the draft policy does not address the historical imbalance as written, and fresh ideas were needed. CW asked if an option would be to hold off on abandoning this draft policy, and working on it until an alternate solution came up with regard to the historical imbalance, mentioned in his previous comment. RS stated that if the motion failed, that would be the course of the action taken.
JS stated that if the draft policy continued, he would not be in favor of it, as it requires other RIRs to change it. CT stated that the problem statement was valid, but the proposed text was not the right way to solve the issue.
The motion to abandon failed with 5 in favor (OD, JP, LS, AW, CW) and 10 against (DA, AD, DF, DH, AM, TM, AP, RS, JS, CT).
RS stated that all feedback would be merged into new text.
The President advised the Council to craft problem statements that are as clear as possible, since it helps with assessing the policy text.
DH asked JP and RS what they intended to do next with the text, given the Council's discussion. RS stated that the community had made it clear that the numbers in the text, as written, were not acceptable; and, staff has made it clear that the vast majority of current inter-RIR transfers are from ARIN to other regions. Feedback had come in the form of changes to the policy statement, problem statement, and the title. He further stated that while he believed the draft policy was good, he was unsure that consensus would be achieved.
With regard to previously abandoned Draft Policy 2017-6, the Chair tasked AW to craft an abandonment statement, and to provide it to staff. AW agreed to do so.
8. Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements
LS stated that there had been good community discussion which cemented the community's feelings with regard to the text, as written. He thanked the Chair for asking the community for a second show of hands regarding if they would support 2017-5 replacing "should" with "shall" in NRPM Section 184.108.40.206. LS stated that the question helped drive support for amending the text to include "shall" and to advance it.
It was moved by CT, and seconded by CW, that:
"The ARIN Advisory Council advances 'Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-5: Improved IPv6 Registration Requirements' to Last Call, with the proposed text of NRPM Section 220.127.116.11 amended to read "If the downstream recipient of a static assignment of /64 or more addresses requests publishing of that assignment in ARIN's registration database, the ISP shall register that assignment as described in Section 18.104.22.168."
The Chair called for discussion. CT stated that he believed the level of discussion surrounding the one-word change left the Council within their rights to make it the change prior to Last Call.
The Chair noted that for the show of hands, while questions are normally solidified before the meeting, this adjustment was made in response to the discussion in the room. He read the floor count from the discussion of 2017-5 for the record: 125 people in the room and 7 remote participants. There were 42 were in favor of advancing the 2017-5 using the word "should' in NRPM Section 22.214.171.124, with 2 against. There were 56 were in favor of advancing the 2017-5 using the word "shall' in NRPM Section 126.96.36.199, with 0 against.
JS stated that he agreed with the President on the need to clean up problem statements, and asked if there was a need to adjust the problem statement of Recommended Draft Policy 2017-5 prior to Last Call. The President stated that his prior comment was with regard to all draft policies, and that the Council was free to adjust the problem statement of the recommended draft policy (RDP) as it deemed appropriate. The President further stated that problem statement changes tended to be less impactful than policy statement changes, but either would be acceptable for this RDP at this stage - as long as it reflected the discussion during the policy consultation.
CT stated that he did not want to delay this RDP by doing so. TM stated that she supported the amendment, and that the policy shepherds should set an extended Last Call period.
The Chair asked the President if an end-date for Last Call is set in the PDP. The President stated that while there was a 60-day window for the Council to advance an RDP to Last Call after the completion of a Public Policy Consultation (PPC), and a 60-day window for the Council to advance an RDP to the Board of Trustees after the completion of Last Call, the end-date of Last Call is determined by the Council - with a 14-calendar day minimum.
AD asked if another AC meeting would be held during October. The Chair stated that there would not. DH stated that there were seven weeks until the next Advisory Council meeting. TM stated that an end-date for Last Call still needed to be set.
CT asked if an amendment to the motion to include the end-date for Last Call was required. SHo stated that the end-date for Last Call did not require a motion, and could be determined separately.
AD made a motion to set a 30-day Last Call period, but withdrew it as there was already a motion on the table at this time.
The motion to advance RDP 2017-5 carried unanimously, via roll call vote.
The Chair stated that while an extended Last Call period was needed, an excess of 30 days may not help spur discussion on the PPML. LS suggested an end-date of 10 November. The Chair called for objections. There were no objections. The Chair asked staff to incorporate the end-date into the messaging when initiating Last Call. SHo agreed to do so.
9. Draft Policy ARIN-2017-8: Amend the Definition of Community Network
DF stated that there had been good discussion from the community, and that he would need some time to incorporate their feedback. He asked AD for his thoughts. AD stated that the problem statement needed editing, the existing text regarding critical functions should be edited, and that the draft policy should be revised to address NRPM Section 6, in order to allow a community network to qualify for an "XXX-Small" allocation.
10. Any Other Business
The Chair stated that the items previously requested by DH and AD would be discussed at this time.
ARIN 40 Policy Experience Report
DH stated that AD's prior modifications allowing organizations to qualify for a /21 easily does not reconcile with NRPM Section 8 language; however, at present, staff is moving forward with /21 allocations. JSw stated that because no organization can rightly qualify under immediate-need policy in NRPM Section 188.8.131.52, staff does not consider it when processing requests.
The President stated that 'immediate-need' policy uses time urgency as a way to obtain space, and given that all approved parties end up on the waiting list for unmet IPv4 requests, a policy for 'immediate-need' may appear disingenuous. The Chair agreed, stating that immediate-need was made even more irrelevant when the ties between NRPM Sections 8 and 4 were severed.
RS asked if organizations are currently requesting or attempting to qualify under NRPM Section 184.108.40.206. JSw replied that organizations regularly are attempting to qualify under NRPM Section 220.127.116.11., and that the issue presented an increase in workload and frustration with IPv4 requests. The Chair stated that modifying NRPM Section 18.104.22.168 would fall under NRPM simplification. JSw agreed, stating that staff is attempting to be helpful to the Council in that regard.
The Chair asked what the top three 'bothers' from current policy were that the Council could address as part of NRPM simplification. DH replied that one bother was the mismatch between NRPM Sections 8 and 4. AD stated that he would work to address that issue. DH stated that a second bother was the immediate-need policy in NRPM Section 22.214.171.124. CT stated that he would work to address that issue. DH stated that a third bother was that if a small ISP wanted to SWIP an entire block to its customer, it should be reviewed by ARIN staff.
DH stated that this policy has been in place for years, and it should be evaluated for relevancy in an era where ARIN is not actively allocating IPv4 space. NRPM Section 126.96.36.199. is a remnant of old cable company policy that requires SWIP, and should also be evaluated for relevancy.
JSw stated that with regard to transfers, organizations who have SWIP'd a large number of residential market space to themselves are now showing up in the database as new organizations SWIPing to old organizations and further SWIPing to customers - leaving a seemingly useless Organization Identifier (Org ID) in the middle. They are asking staff to clean up these Org IDs.
The President stated that, aside from the policy issue, a tools issue existed wherein these organizations do not have user-friendly ways to clean up large numbers of SWIPs with dead Org IDs in the middle of the SWIP chain. He further stated that staff was investigating solutions but, with the policy still in place, organizations will continue to follow it and end up in similar situations. JSw agreed.
OD stated that he would be in favor of eliminating the self-SWIP review, but not for removing NRPM Section 188.8.131.52.1. He stated that he would rather address exemptions to NRPM Section 184.108.40.206 for self-SWIPs, which should address staff's concerns, although he encourages staff to investigate solutions for cleanups, and global search and replaces. The Chair asked if self-SWIPS required review according to policy. AD stated that NRPM Section 220.127.116.11.1 did require it.
DH asked if a mismatch of category definitions existed in policy. OD stated that if so, it could be addressed editorially. The Chair stated that both policy and tooling issues could be addressed.
OD stated that he would submit a proposal to address the policy issue. The President noted that should the proposal be such that size categories would be replaced by a single value, then the change would not be editorial. OD stated he would like to see old prefix lengths used from the fee table. The Chair asked if size categories were a concern. OD stated that he did not believe they were a large enough concern to warrant running through a PDP cycle. The Chair stated that, at minimum, this adjustment would take the form of an editorial change.
Cleanup of NRPM Section 4
AD noted that a draft policy regarding the cleanup of NRPM Section 4 is currently on the AC's docket, but gained no support from the PPML. He asked for feedback on how the Council could address the large amount of unneeded policy remaining in NRPM Section 4.
DF stated that the cleanup should be done in chunks, due to the history of omnibus proposals failing. CW agreed, stating that one of those chunks could be to align needs language with IPv6 language, perhaps using pointers.
The Chair asked if any volunteers would like to look into selecting the 'lower hanging fruit' with regard to NRPM Section 4 cleanup. CW stated that he would be willing to do so.
The President stated that taking on small chunks is probably wise, but a strategy for the targeted end result might prove to be very helpful. He suggested that the Council should consider whether they are aiming for the NRPM of year 2019, or of year 2025 and beyond. If considering the short-term, the Council should consider that IPv4 returns, and the waiting list, will likely still be active.
OD stated that tying NRPM Section 4 to NRPM Section 6 has been done before, and should not be part of the approach to simplifying NRPM Section 4. He further stated that omnibus proposals likely failed in the past because they changed too many NRPM Sections that held particular value for people, and that the NRPM clean-up should be aimed toward a long-term solution, perhaps by resuscitating abandoned Draft Policy 2017-7, so that it does not take too long to be helpful by the time the work is complete.
JS stated that handling the simplification of NRPM Section 4 in pieces may result in an unmanageable number of pieces, but that these pieces should be handled simultaneously, for efficiency.
The Chair suggested that the matter be taken to the AC's mailing list so that a plan working toward a year 2020+ NRPM could be formulated. CT offered to assist with the process, stating that a fear has existed in the community that unintended consequences may occur, but that small, reasonable groupings could occur.
The Chair stated that if the AC intended to work toward a year 2020+ NRPM, they should also consider the other sections of the NRPM. JS asked if these proposals would require any pre-approval. CT stated that these would be handled as all other proposals would be, through the PDP. He believed that discussion among the AC should occur beforehand, with an explicit objective of identifying and addressing potential unintended consequences of simplification. He stated that those who are particularly interested in this topic may wish to have some specific discussions around that topic. He further suggested that they should address how to group proposals in reasonable and logical chunks that could then be apportioned among AC members for submission through the PDP. The Chair stated that the work could be done via the AC's mailing list, and/or via a subgroup as needed.
The Chair then obtained confirmation regarding who would address the three specific NRPM clean-up issues from the ARIN 40 Policy Experience Report: AD confirmed that he would address the mismatch between Section 4 and Section 8; CT confirmed that he would address the immediate-need issue; and, OD confirmed that he would address the issue of the small ISP SWIP of an entire block.
The Chair called for any other business items. There were none.
The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:02 p.m. PDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by JS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.