Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 21 June 1998 [Archived]


Here in the Vault, information is published in its final form and then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.

Boston, Massachusetts


  • Bill Darte
  • John Klensin
  • Karl Denninger
  • Guy Middleton
  • Michael DeShazo
  • Hilarie Orman
  • Michael Dillon
  • Alec Peterson
  • Avi Freedman
  • Samir Saad
  • Ed Kern
  • David Whipple
  • Hank Kilmer
  • Cathy Wittbrodt

ARIN Board of Trustees:

  • Scott Bradner
  • Doug Humphrey
  • John Curran
  • Don Telage
  • Ken Fockler
  • Kim Hubbard

Other attendees included Dennis Molloy, ARIN Counsel and Art McKee, an attorney from the Hanson and Molloy law firm.

The agenda was reviewed and approved with one modification:

That the agenda items concerning IPv6 and the routing registry would be discussed during a working lunch so those members that needed to leave early could be involved in the discussion.

Hilarie Orman, the chair, suggested the AC review the selection of the chair, as they were not initially aware that the post was for a full year. Hilarie was asked if she would like to stay on as chair and she replied that she was willing to complete her year as the chairman.

Agenda item, ARIN Documentation:

Kim Hubbard asked the AC what additional information beyond the data currently provided was needed. Discussion ensued and it was agreed that additional information was necessary to help determine future allocation policies. The AC requested information about allocation approvals for as far back as the data exists, as well as regular reports of new allocations.

Kim Hubbard noted that collecting the requested data would be time consuming for the ARIN staff who are already busy with database conversions and normal duties.

It was suggested that if the ARIN database has a transaction log, this might be used to help gather the information. Kim Hubbard will get back to the AC with information about historical transaction logs that might exist.

Michael Dillon posed a question about the ability to gather this data at a reasonable cost. A decision was made to submit to the Board of Trustees a recommendation on the matter of documentation. The recommendation was put forth by Michael Dillon and seconded by Karl. The information requested is for all allocations and is to include the date, size, and extension history for each block. This information would not include any proprietary information such as the name of the organization receiving the allocation.

This recommendation is broken into two parts with the first covering ongoing allocations and the second developing a cost analysis for gathering historical data. The vote was as follows: 11 in favor, Michael DeShazo opposed and Guy Middleton and Dave Whipple abstaining.

Alec Peterson noted that if information is disclosed to the AC members they might in turn disclose this information to the members. Discussion ensued without resulting in any policy recommendation.

Agenda Item, Address Filtering:

Sprint is currently giving consideration to eliminating prefix filtering and has expressed concern as to how this possible change of policy would affect ARIN. The issues are conservation and allocation.

Kim Hubbard stated that with the removal of the filters, ARIN would more than likely receive more requests for address space. More customers receiving addresses directly from ARIN may increase the size of the routing tables. A recommendation that ARIN impose a formal program to collect routing table data and archive the information was made by Michael Dillon and seconded by Karl Denninger. Those in favor were Hilarie Orman, Karl Denninger, and Michael Dillon. As the remaining AC members were opposed, the motion failed to carry.

Discussion about allocating prefixes longer than /19 took place. Some members favor restricting such allocations to multihomed entities. Debate ensued around a uniform definition of the term “multihomed” without reaching agreement.

Agenda Item, IPv6:

Kim Hubbard informed the AC that an IETF Working Group wants ARIN to begin issuing IPv6 addresses by the beginning of 1999. ARIN would only issue Top Level Aggregation (TLA) according to the Hinden IETF draft. It was agreed that Kim Hubbard would keep the AC posted on any future developments regarding IPv6.

Agenda Item, Routing Registry:

At the first ARIN members meeting, some members raised the issue of ARIN starting a routing registry. ARIN staff have also been approached by other organizations recently requesting this. Kim Hubbard presented the projected impact on ARIN’s budget which was reviewed and discussed. It was noted that RIPE has a routing registry and that APNIC is planning to have one fairly soon.

Hilarie Orman made a motion that the AC recommend to the BoT that the proposal for the routing registry be accepted. Michael DeShazo seconded. All but one were in favor; Bill Darte abstained.

Ed Kern requested that the ARIN members be given the opportunity to comment on the structure of the routing registry prior to implementation.

Agenda Item, Liberalization of Policy:

It was agreed that the current practice of discouraging allocations of prefixes longer than 19 bits be codified. Avi Freedman proposed and John Klensin seconded a recommendation to the ARIN BoT that the allocation policy specify that the maximum prefix length be 19 bits and that the AC should investigate the possibility of moving the bit boundaries down. In the vote that followed, twelve members were in favor with Hilarie Orman and Karl Denninger abstaining.

The issue of extending the bit boundary of allocations was raised. It was suggested that ARIN should lower its minimum allocation from a /19 prefix to a /20 prefix while keeping a close watch on the routing table size to see if it is affected by this change.

Michael Dillon proposed the following: That the AC recommend to the BoT that the bit boundary on all existing allocation policies be increased by one bit, i.e., the minimum allocations would move from a /19 to a /20 for those who qualify, and for those who qualify for addresses under the current multi-homing policy (for which the current policy states organizations that have previously used a /21 would receive a /20 from a reserved /19) would now be changed to “organizations that have used a /22 and agreed to renumber would now receive a /21 from a reserved /20.” Alec seconded and further amended this proposal by stating that the effect on the global routing table will be watched and evaluated. Nine members favored the motion; opposed were Guy Middleton, John Klensin, Cathy Wittbrodt, Ed Kern and Hank; abstaining was Karl Denninger. The motion carried.

Agenda Item, ARIN Structure and AC Function:

A question was raised about the possibility of the AC asking questions of ARIN’s legal counsel during the course of the meeting. John Curran admonished the AC to not incur legal expenses by asking questions requiring legal research. A motion was brought to the table to ask the BoT and legal counsel to leave the AC meeting temporarily in order to discuss Curran’s statements. Nine members were in favor; Avi Freedman was opposed; four members abstained: Dave Whipple, Alec Peterson, Samir Saad, and Guy Middleton.

The Board members and the legal team left the room.

The AC discussed its relationship to the Board of Trustees, noting that the formal communication channel was from the chair of the AC to the ARIN president and to the chair of the BoT (the direction being reversed for BoT to AC communication). The Board and legal counsel were invited back to the meeting.

Using the formal channel, the AC asked the BoT to participate in the AC meetings in order to provide information to the AC and to have legal counsel answer AC questions that had immediate answers. The BoT agreed and several questions were posed to legal counsel. One questioner asked if ARIN was a members’ organization, and legal counsel replied that it was not; the exact relationship between ARIN and its members is delineated by the bylaws.

Agenda Item, Effective Communication:

It was informally agreed that the minutes from both AC and BoT meetings should be published as expeditiously as possible.

Communication within the AC itself. Several people asked that discussion on the AC mailing list be toned down. The hostile tones sometimes taken are offensive to many of the AC members. As there is an obligation to read everything, it was also requested that extremely lengthy messages be shortened and the subject line changed if the topic had substantially changed during back and forth messages.

Agenda Item, Bylaw Changes:

The current bylaws include provision for removal of officers and trustees, but do not set rules for the removal of AC members. Michael Dillon stated that the section of the bylaws regarding the AC should have provisions similar to those in the BoT section.

Don Telage stated that the Board has a fiduciary responsibility not borne by the AC. Kim Hubbard noted that she had sent the AC a draft version of the proposed bylaw changes that had been voted on at the first AC meeting in December and discussed further on the AC mailing list. Hilarie Orman stated that the AC has not worked on any further revision of the Bylaws. It was noted that the BoT has been working on some proposed bylaw changes and would discuss them at a Board meeting one day hence. Hilarie Orman moved to recommend to the BoT the following changes in the bylaws (as specified in the Hubbard draft):

Quorum. At all meetings of the Advisory Council, eight (8) of the fifteen (15) members shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Decisions of the Advisory Council shall be made by the concurring vote of a majority of voting members of the Advisory Council present and voting. If at any meeting there is less than a quorum present, the Advisory Council shall transact no business and the only motion that shall be considered shall be a motion to adjourn.

Telephonic Meetings Permitted. Meetings may be held by means of conference telephone calls or other telephonic or telecommunications means by which all voting Advisory Council members participating in the meeting can simultaneously hear each other.

Notice of Meetings. Notice of all telephonic meetings of the Advisory Council shall be given to each Advisory Council member by Internet or written mail at least three (3) working days before the telephonic meeting. Notice of all other meetings of the Advisory Council shall be given to each Advisory Council member at least thirty (30) days before the meeting unless all members agree to a shorter notice. Notice will include a detailed agenda of discussion items. All meetings will either be telephonic or will require the physical presence of members, none will be a combination of both.

Electronic Mail Voting. Voting will be permitted via electronic mail. Advisory Council members will have five (5) working days to vote from the time the initial motion is presented. Decisions shall be made by the concurring vote of the majority only if a quorum of members has voted. If all members have not voted by the third day, a reminder message will be sent.

Resignation. Any Advisory Council member may resign at any time by giving written notice to the President of the Board of Trustees. Any such resignation shall take effect at the time specified therein, or if the time is not specified therein, upon its acceptance by the President.

Karl Denninger seconded the motion and there followed a unanimous vote in favor of acceptance.

The next motion addressed the need for a clause covering the removal of AC members by AC members. Hilarie Orman noted that removal by a majority of the AC members might undermine representation of minority viewpoints. Scott Bradner noted the US Senate can remove its own members.

The following bylaw amendment was proposed (*** by whom? seconded?):

Removal. Any Advisory Council member may be removed from office by the affirmative vote of a majority of the voting members of the full Advisory Council; this vote may be taken at a meeting held in person or telephonically. Any such AC member proposed to be removed shall be entitled to at least ten (10) days notice and shall be entitled to participate in such a meeting.

In the subsequent vote, twelve members were in favor, Karl Denninger and Hilarie Orman were opposed and there were no abstentions. The motion carried and will be recommended to the BoT.

Dave Whipple and Michael DeShazo left the meeting at 4 pm.

Agenda Item, Reclamation:

A major issue now affecting the registry is that of address space issued before ARIN’s creation and before RFC 2008. Also of concern are issues of ownership with regard to address space. A statement was made asserting that reclamation is part of general conservation practiced by ARIN and is part of ARIN’s stewardship.

Kim Hubbard stated that when ownership of addresses is in question, ARIN doing nothing still constitutes a decision; no action is therefore still an action. Don Telage mentioned that ARIN needs a dispute policy and needs to assert ownership rules for addresses. Hank Kilmer said that the precedent has been set with domain names: even though fees were not initially charged, renewal fees are now imposed.

Kim Hubbard stated that disputes on address space are passed to the IANA. She also stated that in the case of companies that have gone bankrupt, ARIN should have the right to reclaim their address space. Bill Darte stated that reclamation issues could be one of the educational aspects of ARIN. He brought a resolution to the floor asking the AC to draft a letter to the ‘member-volunteer’ asking that they produce the educational document whose subject is meant to explain current PA and PI space along with allocation policy and the need to conserve space, etc.

The resolution was seconded and passed.

Reclamation will be an action item for email discussions.

Non-Agenda Item:

Kim Hubbard mentioned that ARIN is receiving an increasing number of transfer requests, particularly from legacy allocations. Mergers and acquisitions are contributing to this. Michael Dillon suggested that the blocks be sliced to get back part of the initial allocation. Karl Denninger brought a resolution to the table asking that ARIN remove itself from any issues involving pre-RFC2008 allocations and recommending that educational action be undertaken by ARIN staff to encourage customers to return any unused allocations. This motion wasnot seconded.

Agenda Item, Future Issues:

The need for a subcommittee on bylaw changes continues and will be addressed soon. The IANA relationship and microallocations will be items for email discussions. Discussion of credit card payments led to an agreement not to consider any recommendations about them.

Kim Hubbard announced that the next member meeting will be held in late September and will most likely be held in New Orleans. The AC expressed a desire to have their meeting linked with the member meeting.

The meeting was adjourned promptly at 5:00 p.m.

All resolutions receiving a majority vote are hereby presented the ARIN

President as recommendations to the Board of Trustees.

Hilarie Orman

AC Chairman


Here in the Vault, information is published in its final form and then not changed or updated. As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.