Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 19 May 2005 [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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.



  • Ron da Silva (RD), Chair
  • Alec Peterson (AP), Vice Chair
  • Marla Azinger (MA)
  • Leo Bicknell (LB)
  • Bill Darte (BD)
  • Andrew Dul (AD)
  • Mark Kosters (MK)
  • Lea Roberts (LR)
  • Robert Seastrom (RS)
  • John Sweeting (JS)
  • Stacy Taylor (ST)
  • Cathy Wittbrodt (CJW)
  • Suzanne Woolf (SW)

ARIN Staff:

  • Einar Bohlin (EB), Policy Analyst
  • Thérèse Colosi, Recording Secretary
  • Nate Davis (ND), Director of Operations
  • Susan Hamlin (SD), Director of Member Services

ARIN Counsel:

  • Stephen Ryan


  • Paul Andersen, Ray Plzak


  • Alex Rubenstein

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments on this Agenda. There were no comments.

3. Formal Approval of the Minutes of April 19, 2005

ST moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council adopts the Minutes of April 19, 2005 as written.”

This was seconded by CJW. The Chair called for any comments. BD requested a correction to these minutes under Action Item: JUL04-10 RJ, BD Defining Utilization, in the 4/19/05 Update, where he had stated “. he would re-send the manual to the review group again for comments.” BD stated that the word used should have been ‘document’, in lieu of ‘manual’.

ST stated that she accepted the minutes as modified. The motion carried unanimously.

4. RIPE Trip Report

a. AFRINIC. MK and JS previously sent their reports to the AC via email. The Chair asked for any comments or questions. MK stated that it was a great experience to be in Maputo for the official recognition of AFRINIC, and that the meeting went very well. The AC thanked them both for attending the AFRINIC meeting in Mozambique.

b. RIPE. CJW and LR previously sent their reports to the AC via email. The Chair asked for any comments or questions. There were no comments. The Chair thanked them for the reports they had provided.

5. Policies in Initial Review

a. IPv6 HD Ratio.

AD moved that:

“The AC supports moving the Policy Proposal on IPv6 HD Ratio forward as written.”

This was seconded by LR. The Chair called for any discussion. LR stated that RIPE was also in support of .94 as well. AD brought up the issue of initial and secondary IPv6 allocation policies. He commented that under the current v6 policy it is easier to justify a large v6 allocation based upon the current v4 infrastructure rather than being able to justify a reasonable sized allocation based upon the v6 build-out plans. It was decided to table this issue for discussion at the AC’s next meeting.

The motion carried via roll call with 1 abstention (AD).

b. Moving AFRINIC-specific policy to “historical status”.

AD moved that:

“The AC supports moving the policy proposal to move AFRINIC-specific policy to historical status forward as written.”

This was seconded by LR. The Chair called for any discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried via roll call with 1 abstention (AD).

6. Policy Proposal 2004-5: Address Space for Multiple Discrete Networks

BD stated that he had sent a chronological update of the 2004-5 proceedings to the AC via email. The Chair asked if the AC had a chance to see the revisions and if they had any comments. LR stated it was well presented. JS felt it was historically correct.

BD reviewed the history of the evolution of the text with the AC. It was proposed to remove the word “cumulative”. BD then read the final edited text to the AC. The Chair asked if the edit made had created another loophole to the policy. Discussion ensued, and it was the sense of the AC that it did not, and that the intent of the policy was not changed with this edit. BD stated that all of the AC needed to read the text it could be discussed at the next AC meeting. The Chair asked him to resend the text via email to the AC and asked the AC to review and provide comments to their list by Monday, May 23rd.

The Chair stated that if no substantial changes are made, the policy proposal will be moved forward to the President to present to the ARIN Board. BD requested AD shepherd this as he would be unavailable, AD agreed.

7. Policy Proposal 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-Sites

LR stated that she had exchanged email with the author with regard to the proposal needing a high bar for the size of the organization that would qualify, and that the author did not agree. LR stated they were still working on the text. The Chair stated that additional editing was obviously needed and that LR would continue to work with the author with CJW as the secondary person to provide additional assistance.

8. Policy Proposal 2005-2: Directory Services Overhaul

LB stated that he had sent revisions to the list and had not received feedback as of yet. He felt that because everyone was focused on the v6 issue, it deterred from comments being made on this policy proposal and that this policy should be deferred until after the v6 issue has died down. The Chair agreed and stated that at that time the policy will then be modified by LB and MK.

9. Policies in Last Call

The following are policies currently in the Last Call process, listed here for reference. EB explained that last call will end June 1st, and suggested the AC continue shepherding them through the process if necessary.

a. Policy Proposal 2004-3 Global Address for Private Network Inter-connectivity. The Chair stated that MA and BD were assigned to shepherd this policy proposal.

b. Policy Proposal 2004-8 Allocation of IPv6 Address Space by the IANA Policy to RIRs. The Chair stated that JS and AP were assigned to shepherd this policy proposal.

c. Policy Proposal 2005-3 Lame Delegations. The Chair stated that PA and MA were assigned to shepherd this policy proposal.

10. PPML Digests

MA suggested a digest published quarterly with each policy proposal having a description of what that proposal would accomplish if it were voted in with regard to large and small businesses. She also stated other ideas the digest could cover such as: a list of the pros and cons of the policy proposal; how it would affect routing, if at all; and, possibly side by side comparisons of what was currently in effect vs. the new policy being in effect. She stated the intent of the digest would be to simplify the policy proposals to help the community understand them better in order to discuss and vote on them.

BD suggested using the existing monthly summary that EB sends to the AC. BD suggested it may be utilized and embellished by the AC. The Chair asked the AC who they felt would make sure the input needed was incorporated into the digest. BD suggested it be the Chair who would ensure there was sufficient input.

Discussion ensued and SH suggested that a small AC task force be appointed to work with ARIN staff to determine how best to disseminate the information on the ARIN website Policy Pages or on the PPML. The Chair liked her suggestion and proposed: adding this task to the AC’s Open Action Item List; conducting a non-published dry run of a digest, used to explore content; and, working with the ARIN President and staff on what kind of summary would be most efficient.

The Chair called for volunteers with AP, MA, and BD volunteering. The Chair requested MA to take the lead with AP and BD supporting the effort. He requested they take in to account what the digest would look like, the logistics of the process, and the frequency of publishing the document.

11. Review of Open Action Item List

JUL04-10 RJ, BD Defining Utilization

10/21/04 Update: No information could be provided at this time.

12/16/04 Update: BD stated that he had received an email with a document describing utilization from RJ. He reviewed it and also went through the ARIN policy document and found all references associated with utilization.

BD felt the document did not clear up inconsistencies in the policy document, and that an expansion of RJ’s document would be necessary. RJ stated that the document was a well vetted draft from among ARIN staff, but agreed with BD’s summation. He stated that some inconsistencies could be cleared up, but a full review needs to be done to weed out incorrectly used terms. RJ was tasked with sending the document to the rest of the AC for further review.

1/27/05 Update: BD stated he and RJ published their documents to the AC’s list for discussion and stated that one AC member had responded. He then suggested a common statement on what ‘utilization’ meant and referencing it to the Glossary seemed the most appropriate action. He stated that any other similar references that caused users frustration could be dealt with similarly. It was discussed that a possible action item in a BoF could be to let people know of this idea, gather other glossary items that were confusing, and ARIN staff could address them as well.

RP agreed with BD and stated that in terms of doing a sweep through the policy manual, careful editing to the document would be necessary. He agreed with BD on a BoF to keep this issue moving forward. RP also supported fixed definitions planted in the glossary; and suggested that the AC form a discussion group to review it. He further suggested there could be a joint task force of ARIN staff and AC members to work on it.

The Chair stated that he and BD would shepherd this initiative, with AP and CJW volunteering as part of the group.

3/3/05 Update: BD stated that everyone reviewed the NRPM and that he was still shepherding this issue. He stated that he would keep everyone posted on its progress.

4/19/05 Update: BD thanked everyone who reviewed the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), and apologized that MA had done the most work. He noted that all differences had been identified and aggregated into a common document. BD stated that this compilation had been published back to the group of AC members reviewing the NRPM, and he had received some comments.

BD also stated that he had created a first draft of definitions and had also published this to the group, but had received limited response. The group of reviewers in addition to BD is: AP, CJW, ST, and MA. A number of group members said that they wished to have BD’s documents re-sent to the group for review. BD state he would re-send the manual to the review group again for comments; and, after group comment and edits, he would then send it to the whole of the AC for their review and consideration.

Chair encouraged all of the AC to review the document when they receive it.

BD stated that the ARIN staff began this process with a document dealing with the historical use of ‘utilization’ and, that was a valuable document; however, crisp, absolute definitions needed to be documented, and that this was the reason for this secondary effort.

5/19/05 Update: BD stated that he sent a post to the AC policy support group, but realized he needed to send it to the AC as a whole, and would forward it to all of the AC for review. The Chair requested the AC review BD’s post and thanked BD for all of his work. OPEN


ARIN Counsel, Ethics Training Slides At the last AC meeting Counsel stated he would send the slides he presented to the AC list for their reference. 5/19/05 Update: not all of the AC had reviewed. RS did read them and greatly appreciated the slides stating they were very informative. Stephen Ryan announced that he had joined the call at this time. The Chair requested the AC send any comments to Counsel after reviewing the slides. CLOSED.

12. Adjournment

Chair called for any objections to adjourning at 5:02 p.m. EDT.

There were no objections. The meeting adjourned by unanimous consent.


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.