Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 October 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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.

Bellevue, Washington


  • Bill Darte
  • Michael Dillon
  • Ed Kern
  • Hank Kilmer
  • John Klensin
  • Guy Middleton
  • Alec Peterson
  • Jeremy Porter
  • Cathy Wittbrodt
  • Dave Whipple
  • Hilarie Orman, Chair


  • John Curran, Chairman Board
  • Ken Fockler, Trustee
  • Don Telage, Trustee
  • Kim Hubbard, President of ARIN
  • Mary K. Lee, notetaker
  • Dennis Molloy, ARIN Legal Counsel.

The meeting was called to order at 9:05 by Hilarie Orman.

The agenda was reviewed and approved with two additions: (1) the selection of a slate of nominees for the upcoming vacancy on the Board; (2) Advisory Council restructuring.

The minutes of the meeting of June 29 in Boston and the teleconference of October 7 were reviewed. The minutes were approved unanimously. The June 29 minutes are currently available online in the member section of ARIN’s website. The minutes from October 7 will be posted as well.

Selection of Nominees for the Board

A request was made to have members of the Board, ARIN counsel, Dennis Molloy, and nominee Cathy Wittbrodt (a nominee) absent themselves from the room during deliberations. These individuals left the meeting temporarily.

Kim Hubbard reminded the AC that she had raised a relevant issue regarding Board terms of office. Prior to the meeting, Kim Hubbard had posed a question to the AC mailing list concerning the possibility of Don Telage’s resignation and the issue of continuity. She had suggested that Ken Fockler, currently serving a one year term of office as the replacement for Raymundo Vega, might replace Don Telage and complete the second year of his term. Ken Fockler had not submitted a nomination for himself for the current vacancy. Kim Hubbard stated that the question as discussed on the mailing list had drawn generally favorable comments. Cathy Wittbrodt returned to the room for this part of the discussion.

After some discussion of this question, and after noting that the discussion on the mailing list had been brief and that ability of the AC was not geared towards responding to policy questions requiring a quick answer, the AC did not have a positive response to the issue of term exchanges. John Klensin and others pointed out that the appearance of a self perpetuating Board could be damaging to ARIN. Guy Middleton moved that the AC should decline to comment on this issue and Michael Dillon seconded the motion. Michael Dillon, Hank Kilmer, Guy Middleton and Jeremy Porter were in favor of this motion with the rest of the AC opposed. The motion failed to carry.

John Klensin then stated that the AC should not be making up procedures as it goes along. Guy Middleton expressed concern that the AC members spend too much time on procedural issues, when they should be advising on Internet number policy. Alec Peterson said that the AC still needs to iron out procedures. Hilarie Orman noted that the AC doesn’t always record or follow its own procedures.

John Klensin made a motion to recommend to the Board of Trustees that they do nothing that could be construed as creating new policy with regard to the terms of Board members, and specifically that they not engage in seat swapping or any other arrangements not provided for in the bylaws. Hank Kilmer seconded this motion. In the vote that followed, Michael Dillon was opposed, Guy Middleton and Jeremy Porter abstained and the rest of the AC was in favor of this motion. The motion carried.

The AC then returned to the consideration of nominees to be presented to the Board and Cathy Wittbrodt was excused from the room. The initial slate of nominees submitted included: Vincent Bono, Wayne Correia, Alan Hetzel, Douglas Lattman, Eric Madison, Michael Straty, Cathy Wittbrodt and Dave Wodelet. The qualifications of each nominee were discussed. Guy Middleton made a motion to recommend Michael Straty to the Board of Trustees to fill the open seat. Alec Peterson seconded the motion. In the vote that followed, all were in favor with the exception of Hilarie Orman, who chose to abstain, and Jeremy Porter, who was opposed. Following this vote, Board of Trustees members, Cathy Wittbrodt and Dennis Molloy returned to the meeting.

Statistical Reporting

Kim Hubbard presented statistics for 1998 to the AC including ASN’s issued, transfers completed, total email received by IP group, new ISP requests, phone calls received and other data. She stated that ARIN does not have pre-ARIN logs of dates and times for all database transactions. She was asked what percentage was auto-parsed and responded that it was probably around 50%. She noted that most end-user requests lack merit and fail to gain approval. Going forward, statistics will be kept up to date and more information will be added as necessary. Ed Kern asked how much email is automated and was told that the majority of what is automated is SWIPs. The AC asked about response time to requests. Kim Hubbard commented that ARIN can supply this information but it is not automated at this point. An example was given where the response time could appear to be 43 days; ARIN responded in two days and the customer took 41 days to respond to our reply. Hilarie Orman asked how many emails ARIN received per month and Kim answered that ARIN receives thousands of SWIPs. Hilarie Orman also asked about the number of months between allocations. The average number of months between allocations is 4.0702. John Klensin agreed to stop by ARIN in the near future to help work on gathering and presenting the statistics.

The statistical reporting continued with the number of CIDR blocks issued in 1998. The AC asked about the format of the report, specifically about “other” allocations and whether or not they are filled from reserved space. Kim Hubbard explained that the allocations result from fragments of larger blocks. It was requested that the data also be presented graphically in the future. Ed Kern asked to see a typical “other” allocation. Hilarie Orman asked when the database conversion would be complete and Kim Hubbard answered that it would be finished by late spring. She noted that ARIN is also working on IPv6 and the routing registry. John Klensin stated that he would like to get a brief explanation as to why certain requested data cannot be made available. It was noted that the information presented is a good start and the AC would like to have it continued. John Klensin also asked about the number of allocations from reserved blocks and what is the rate of growth in reserved blocks. John Curran commented that he would like an explanation as to why the AC needs specific data. Hilarie Orman responded that the general motivation was to track the effect of allocation policy on the size of routing tables. A mini-committee comprised of Cathy Wittbrodt, Hank Kilmer, and John Klensin was formed to further discuss these issues and take them to the mailing list.

Bylaws modifications

Samir Saad called in to participate in this portion of the meeting via teleconference; however, Hilarie Orman noted that the bylaws prohibit hybrid-media meetings. Alec Peterson referred to Article VIII, Section 5, which had also been mentioned at the October 7 teleconference. These procedures still need to be explained in detail and finished. There was a suggestion that AC work with a list of guidelines rather than always trying to modify the bylaws. The AC would like to have 10% of a technical writer’s time to help formalize the descriptions of the AC procedures.

Cathy Wittbrodt introduced a motion that the AC ask the Board to recommend draft text for the portions of the bylaws that still need to be filled in by the AC, but also noted that the AC may continue to suggest changes and additions to the bylaws. Dave Whipple seconded this motion. In the vote that followed, Michael Dillon abstained and the rest of the AC voted in favor of this recommendation, which carried.

The suggestion of having written guidelines for the AC was discussed in more detail. Michael Dillon and Bill Darte volunteered to be on the subcommittee to work with the guidelines. The proposed text will originate with the Board. A table of contents will be produced within 30 days. A prioritized list of documents to tackle is needed and guidance from the members is desired. The commitment is to produce a single document draft.

Hilarie Orman asked for a clarification of laws governing email voting. Dennis Molloy, ARIN counsel, explained that the Commonwealth of Virginia had passed a law on July 1, 1998 that went into effect September 1, 1998. Under the new law, such votes must include every member of the voting body and be unanimous; use of electronic identifiers or a digital signature is mandatory. Hilarie Orman further asked for clarification of this rule with respect to a previous bylaws modification allowing ARIN members to vote via email. The clarification as explained by Dennis Molloy was that elections are distinct from votes on issues under Virginia corporation laws.

Several AC members commented upon how much meeting time is still taken up with procedural matters. Cathy Wittbrodt suggested that a regularly scheduled monthly teleconference could help the AC remain current with ARIN issues.

Adjourned for lunch at 12:05.

Internet Governance

When the meeting resumed at 1:10 PM, Kim Hubbard asked whether any AC members were following the progress of discussions on Internet governance and had read the proposed bylaws for the new organization, ICANN. Most of the AC is aware of this new organization and the considerable influence it could have on ARIN. Kim will be meeting with RIPE and APNIC and would like input from the AC regarding the Address Supporting Organization (ASO). The registries will be submitting an application to the Board of ICANN describing the ASO. John Klensin noted that now is the time to focus on addresses, despite the fact that the current focal point is domain names. The Names, Address and Protocol supporting organizations will provide financial support for ICANN. The ASO will elect/select three representatives to the Board of ICANN. Don Telage noted that the new corporation would be incorporated in California, as it will be structured as a 501c(3) corporation. Organizers are also applying for 501c(6) status, which would require a membership structure of some kind.

The discussion continued about ICANN and potential members. John Klensin mentioned that there are some that believe that “everyone” who uses the Internet should have a vote. Kim Hubbard said that there is a possibility that the ASO will be a formal, incorporated organization in which case it would require funding. Don Telage and others noted that Congress is becoming progressively more engaged in these issues. Kim Hubbard suggested a model with two tiers of membership that would include the regional registries as the top tier and other general members in the second tier. Some AC members expressed concern about the expense and overhead of supporting additional organization. Ken Fockler said that it could be a virtual organization that ties together everyone who has an interest.

Kim Hubbard further noted that as ARIN, RIPE and APNIC already exist, the ASO should connect these organizations together. If there is representational voting, then there will need to be a way to account for the differences in the number of memberships within the three registries. ARIN has 180 members and RIPE has 1100 members. Kim feels that the ASO needs to be based on regional considerations, rather than by number of members. Michael Dillon agreed with this view. It was suggested that perhaps AC members could be the representatives from the ASO to the ICANN board. Kim Hubbard will send out policy suggestions and thoughts to the AC mailing list for feedback and comments. These must be received promptly before October 26th, as Kim Hubbard will be leaving on that date for the regional registry meeting.

Transfers of IP numbers and ASNs

John Klensin noted that large CIDR blocks can be split up when companies split up into different entities. There has been a learning experience dealing with the breakup of large companies into smaller ones. This discussion will be continued on the mailing list.

IPv6 Policy

Kim informed the AC that ARIN has promised to allocate IPv6 space by the first of the year. Only transit providers can receive IPv6 allocations from a regional registry. Kim Hubbard will return to the AC with a draft proposal following the meeting of the three registries during the last week of October.

IPv6 fees

RIPE has decided not to charge separately for IPv6 allocations if the requestor is already getting space from RIPE. Anyone who gets space from RIPE is also a member. Only large providers will be getting this space. IPv6 address allocations will have a slow start and it will be rare to give out sub TLAs. It is hoped that address conservation will push the allocation level down to NLAs. John Klensin stated that IPv6 allocations would require at least as much work as IPv4 allocations. The suggestion was made that ARIN should, at the very least, charge on a cost recovery basis. The AC asked Kim Hubbard to give a cost estimate and she replied that the cost would change from year to year.

National NICs

The Mexican NIC has approached ARIN and would like a reduction in fees because it would like to offer lower costs to its members. Several members asked if the IANA had given permission for a LatinNIC and the answer was no. Giving lower fees would encourage others to try and form national NICs. The two other regional registries have made it a policy not to form National NICs. Discussion by the AC included suggestions to make it easier to pay fees in foreign currency and also to work with the IANA to develop policy for forming regional NIC’s. The AC chose not to make a recommendation regarding the Mexican NIC request.

ARIN WHOIS information accessibility

Thus far, the Board has refused public access to the WHOIS database in bulk. The AC was asked to consider if this information should be public, not public at all, or public in a limited way? Discussion by the AC revolved around concerns about the deduction of customer lists from the WHOIS database information. Even research use was felt to risk exposure of sensitive information. Hilarie Orman expressed regret that the AC could not find a way to make limited information available to assist researchers. Dave Whipple recommended that we not provide any bulk information. John Klensin seconded this motion and all, with the exception of Hilarie Orman who was opposed, were in favor of this recommendation, which carried.

The topic of European privacy laws and regulations was introduced by John Klensin. A decision was made to continue discussion of this topic on the mailing list.

Michael Dillon made a motion that the AC should discuss turning off wild card access to the WHOIS database, take this issue before the members and, at the next AC meeting make a recommendation. John Klensin seconded this motion. In the vote that followed, three AC members, Alec Peterson, Hank Kilmer and Hilarie Orman abstained and the rest were in favor of the motion. The motion carried.

Maintenance Fee for Grandfathered Records

ISPs obtaining allocations from ARIN currently pay a yearly subscription fee that offsets the costs associated with record maintenance. End-users also pay a small fee for this purpose. Many ISPs and end-users obtained address space before ARIN began operations, and the holders of this space use ARIN’s services but do not pay ARIN. Kim Hubbard suggested that if ARIN could charge for the grandfathered records, it might be possible to reduce registration fees. This would entail finding and billing the holders of legacy address space. Ed Kern asked what would happen to people who didn’t pay. While there was no ready answer to such a question Kim Hubbard noted that one side benefit of this type of project might be progress in cleaning up of the database and the possible retrieval of address space. John Klensin stated that not all legacy holders are actively connected to the Internet. As the discussion continued, John Curran posed two questions: is there public interest in reclaiming space and is there a reason why the holders of legacy address space should not pay? Jeremy Porter pointed out that Bill Manning has been reclaiming space for years, indicating that this can be done successfully. Hilarie Orman stated that if legacy holders were suddenly billed for huge sums of money that they might not be able to get budget authority for payment. Kim Hubbard would like an opportunity to draft a proposal regarding the issue.

John Klensin introduced a motion that ARIN institute a method of charging legacy record holders on the same basis as existing record holders if they require Inaddr services or record modification. Hilarie Orman seconded this recommendation and all were in favor with the exception of Bill Darte, who was opposed.


Hilarie Orman commented that the AC might be more effective if they operated in a different mode. John Klensin said that one solution would be to expand the Board and have subcommittees that report to the Executive Board. This might mitigate the problem of the AC is not being available on short notice for input and decisions. Kim Hubbard asked how much time the AC requires for responding to a request for a recommendation. Bill Darte replied that the AC needs a good amount of time to respond and should be utilized mainly for issues requiring reflection and advice. Another suggestion was to add a full-time statistician, to the ARIN staff. Don Telage said that the Board could raise issues and the AC could form subcommittees that would work with the staff statistician. Cathy Wittbrodt suggested that the format of the member meeting could be changed to include working groups.

John Curran will draft a document to delineate the roles of the AC and the Board and formalize the communication path between the Board and the AC.

Hilarie Orman mentioned that there are two items that have not been raised today. The first is the handling of Karl Denninger’s resignation. The AC wanted to know why they did not receive notice of Karl’s resignation in a prompt manner. Kim stated that Karl had pre-dated his resignation and the date on his resignation letter was a month earlier than the actual date Kim received it. The second item not discussed at this meeting was the proposal for changing the bylaws to reflect the procedure for filling an AC vacancy due to resignation. The mailing list proposal was to allow a seat to remain vacant if the resignation occurred with less than 6 months to run on the term.

RIPE response to minimum allocation

Alec Peterson will be giving a report from the AC at the members’ meeting October 16th.

It was noted that ARIN and RIPE do allocations in a very different manner from ARIN, and that these differences may have caused them to misunderstand the purpose behind the AC’s previous recommendation to allow /20 allocations. Alec Peterson made a recommendation that the Board continue consideration on the recommendation from the July 29 meeting that the maximum prefix length be 19 bits and put on hold the recommendation that the minimum allocation be lowered from a /19 to a /20. Dave Whipple seconded this recommendation and in the vote that followed, Dave Whipple, Alec Peterson and Cathy Wittbrodt voted in favor, while Michael Dillon and Hilarie Orman opposed. All other members abstained. The motion failed to carry.

Schedule next meeting

The AC requested that the next meeting be held in January 1999, because December will be a busy month for other meetings, including IETF.

The meeting was adjourned at 5:40.


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.