Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 11 March 2002 [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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.



Council Members:

  • Alec Peterson, Chairman (AP)
  • lyric apted (LA)
  • John Brown (JB)
  • Bill Darte (BD)
  • Sanford H. George (SHG)
  • Mark Kosters (MK)
  • Dawn Martin (DM)
  • Kevin Martin (KM)
  • Ron Roberts (RR)
  • Barbara Roseman (BR)
  • John Sweeting (JS)
  • Cathy Wittbrodt (CJW)


  • Ray Plzak, ARIN President (RP)
  • Richard Jimmerson, ARIN Director of Operations (RJ)
  • Thérèse Colosi, ARIN Recording Secretary


  • Avi Freedman


  • Jeremy Porter
  • Ron da Silva

1. Discussion of ICANN Proposal

Advisory Council Chairman Alec Peterson called the meeting to order at 12:36 p.m. PST. Roll call attendance was taken.

The Chair asked if there were any other issues at hand to be discussed. The occurrence of the IPv6 policy change at the recent APNIC member meeting was addressed. Cathy Wittbrodt summarized that changes to the original proposal were made as a compromise in an effort to gain consensus for one globally coordinated policy. She further explained that if these changes were not adopted, the three regions would end up with three separate policies. Richard Jimmerson read the proposed revised policy language to the AC and it is included here for reference:

In order to reduce address space fragmentation and increase the likelihood that routes can be aggregated, end sites should obtain address space from their connectivity providers as opposed to directly from RIR/NIRs. Having RIR/NIRs assign address space directly to end sites in general is known to lead to unscaleable routing, since the routes to those end sites will not aggregate. Thus, allocations of large address blocks (i.e., much larger than /48s) are made to organizations that assign /48s to organizations other than itself, and also provide connectivity for those organizations. Specifically:

  • Organizations requesting address space must be an LIR. (see Section 2.6).

  • Organizations requesting address space must not be end sites.

  • Organizations requesting address space will provide connectivity for the organizations it has assigned /48s to by advertising such connectivity through the single aggregate allocated to that organization.

  • Organizations requesting address space have a plan for assigning address space (e.g., /48s) to other organizations, with the number of such assignments likely to result in at least 200 such assignments over the next two years.

  • Organizations who are granted initial allocations, but after two years no longer satisfy the requirements above, are subject to having their allocations revoked.

LA asked who the editors of the proposed language were. CJW named the members of the team noting that they are members from all three regions. CJW added that the AC needs to work on the issue of subsequent allocation, but that the above language was critical and it needed to be addressed first.

The AC agreed that the proposed language was a compromise, that could be used, and that later iterations could be developed if need be. The AC then discussed the probability of the other RIRs acceptance of the proposed language. It was felt that since this language represented a compromise worked out by members from all three regions, that consensus could be gained.

It was decided that members of the AC should: 1) to familiarize themselves with the original policy document and with the new revised language; and, 2) continue the discussion on the mailing list, working out any concerns and airing them there. RJ stated that he would send APNIC’s presentations to the mailing list for viewing.

Discussion of the ICANN Proposal

Ray Plzak noted that the ARIN Board of Trustees desired that the AC discuss the proposal by Stuart Lynn for the reform of ICANN and provide the results and/or a recommendation to them as an informational input from the AC. The AC discussed the proposal and its impacts on the ASO, the RIRs in general, and ARIN specifically. The discussion focused on the following topics:

· The mission of ICANN;
· What parts of ICANN needed “reform”;
· What parts of ICANN are working and do not need “reform”;
· The role of governments in ICANN; and
· The composition of the ICANN board.

The AC decided to draft a statement and provide it to the ARIN Board of Trustees. It was also noted that Stuart Lynn would be presenting his proposal at the ARIN IX meeting in Las Vegas and that this would be followed by an open discussion period. The Chair encouraged all AC members to participate in that discussion.


The Chair called for any further discussion. There being no further discussion, the meeting adjourned at 1:30 p.m. PST.


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.