Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 August 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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.



  • Paul Andersen, (PA)
  • Marla Azinger (MA)
  • Leo Bicknell (LB)
  • Bill Darte (BD)
  • Andrew Dul (AD)
  • Alex Rubenstein (AR)
  • Robert Seastrom (RS)
  • John Sweeting (JS)
  • Stacy Taylor (ST)
  • Cathy Aronson (CJA)
  • Suzanne Woolf (SW)
  • Ron da Silva (RD), Chair

ARIN Staff:

  • Einar Bohlin (EB), Policy Analyst
  • Thérèse Colosi, Recording Secretary
  • Nate Davis (ND), Director of Operations
  • Richard Jimmerson (RJ), Director of External Relations
  • Ray Plzak (RP), President & CEO

ARIN Counsel:

  • Barrie Van Brackle for Stephen Ryan


  • Lea Roberts


  • Alec Peterson, Mark Kosters


  • Adiel Akplogan, CEO AFRINIC

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted via roll call.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. The Chair added IPv6 /48 under any other business as item 9a.

3. Formal Approval of the Minutes of July 21, 2005

ST moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council adopts the Minutes of July 21, 2005 as written.”

This was seconded by CJA. The Chair called for any objections. There were no objections. The motion carried unanimously.

4. Old Business

A. JUL04-10: Defining Utilization. BD stated that he has been working on adding definitions to the glossary, and was hopeful that the draft would be done before the next ARIN meeting in October. AP had previously volunteered to send the latest draft to the AC for their comments. This had been done and BD stated he would revisit any and all comments and incorporate them into the draft.

B. MAY05-01: PPML Digests. In previous meetings MA voiced a concern about people fundamentally being able to interpret discussion items because they can be confusing and suggested crafting ‘PPML digests’. MA reviewed where this need for the PPML and policy discussion digests originated. She explained that at during the BoF held at the ARIN meeting in Reston, VA, new attendees voiced concern about not understanding, or easily being able to follow, policy discussions. It was suggested that a “pro/con list be created from the view of all member business types” and that this “dumbed-down” detail be briefed at the BoFs before policy voting began, or posted on the PPML before the conference. Concerns were raised by ARIN Staff at this BoF that they would not have the time to create these comparison sheets. Attending AC members at this BoF also shared concerns that they also would not have time to create these comparisons for briefings.

MA further noted the second point of confusion brought up at this BoF was how people get lost in the PPML discussions due to fuzzy verbage or verbose wording. Therefore, the second suggestion brought forth at the Reston BoF was for a PPML notification that would clarify what debates may have progressed on the PPML to date before the upcoming conference. This need was also recognized, but again the question of who would have the time to clarify the PPML listing was not identified. This subject was left lingering until the last six months to date.

MA had proposed the AC staff write summaries, and she created an example of a current PPML policy discussion to facilitate the decision. She also recognized that this was a time-consuming effort. She proposed that the AC include summaries on the PPML that were opposed to at the BoF, or that the AC include a slide right before the voting period began in hopes that it would be less time constraining. She felt that if posted on the PPML before the conference, attendees would show up at the conference already understanding the proposed policies and current debates. MA noted that, to date, the responses from AC have been favorable in that the need is there, but that no one has had the time to dedicate to creating the summaries.

Discussion ensued encompassing issues such as the time needed to commit to this idea; who would be able to craft the digests; and, if ARIN staff should or would be involved vs. the AC solely handling the task. The following two suggestions were brought up during this discussion:

  1. BD suggested that the monthly summary provided to the AC by ARIN staff should be forwarded to the PPML after the AC had an opportunity to review it. AC members could provide clarification or commentary on any portion they thought appropriate. In particular, the primary and secondary AC members assigned to each policy item appearing might encourage discussion.

In addition, BD also suggested that some general text accompany the posting of the edited monthly summary which explains that the summary represents topics of importance to the community; that the community is encourage to read the summary; and that if they have questions about the content or have comments of their own they are encouraged to post them to PPML or contact and AC member.

  1. LB suggested a presentation be made available to any interested parties in a BoF-type of setting during the tutorials at the ARIN meetings. This presentation would provide education not only on any policy proposal text that people find confusing or unclear; but also on critical issues that receive heavy discussion and interest on the PPML, that are not in the proposal process but on which people need clarification.

BD stated that he thought AC members should be responsible for presentations related to the policy items they are following. MA stated that for the items in the presentation that are non-policy proposals, volunteers would be needed to create that portion of the presentation. The Chair recommended the AC draw names, and those chosen would be responsible for drafting those portions of the presentation.

MA reported that she had previously sent a work sample to the AC list for comment, following some input from the Chair and RP. She stated that she had received some comments would like to send out a summary to the AC. All agreed and thanked her.

The Chair requested the AC consider how the AC would implement BD’s suggestion. He requested the President consider how staff could implement LB’s presentation suggestion. The Chair stated that these items would be discussed at the AC’s next meeting.

At this time (4:31 p.m. EDT) RS needed to leave the call.

5. Procedure for Making Motions

The President explained that suggested motions in the agenda are a procedural occurrence. He suggested that wherever a motion being made is anticipated, staff will draft the motion and insert it in the agenda were appropriate. The person making the motion can change it at that time if necessary. The Chair agreed with this procedure.

6. Status of Board Action on Editorial Changes to the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM)

President stated that the Board met on August 8, 2005, and accepted the changes as presented.

7. Proposed Policy: IPv4 Micro-Allocations for Anycast Services.

CJA moved that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposed policy entitled ‘IPv4 Micro-Allocations for Anycast Services’, accepts the text as submitted by the author as a formal policy proposal; and, requests the President assign it a formal policy proposal number.”

This was seconded by ST. The Chair called for any discussion. SW stated her doubts on the proposal as-written and was torn between forwarding it through the process or continuing to work with author. The Chair clarified that at this point in time the intent is to move the text through the process, accepting it as written and then draft changes based on comments received on the PPML.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call. The Chair called for volunteers to shepherd this document. SW volunteered to lead; and AR volunteered as the secondary.

8. Status of Policy Proposals

a. 2005-1: Provider Independent IPv6 Assignments for End-sites. CJA had no update to report at this time and the Chair asked her to take lead.

b. 2005-2: Directory Services Overhaul. LB stated that he had sent MK a late email prior to this meeting. He stated they were still working on the purpose and scope and what it should cover. The Chair requested they have the changes in text sent to the PPML by the next AC meeting.

c. 2005-4: AFRINIC Recognition Policy. AD will send a message to the PPML 45 days out from ARIN XVI (September 11, 2005) to see if any issues emerge.

d. 2005-5: IPv6 HD Ratio. At the last meeting, AD stated that there had been some discussion of this issue on the global IPv6 mailing list since Thomas Narten released his Internet draft. AD suggested the AC continue to follow this discussion. AD stated that he had not seen any on changing .94 to anything else, and that most people seemed agreeable to this number. The President stated that people will be discussing a similar proposal at the next APNIC meeting in Hanoi, and requested, since AD and ST will be attending this meeting, they pay particular attention to that discussion.

9. Any Other Business

A. IPv6 /48 vs. v6 or otherwise. The Chair stated that he would be sending Thomas an email requesting he post the policy proposal by the 27th. BD volunteered to contact Thomas for any help Thomas may need.

10. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:58 p.m. EDT.

ST moved to adjourn, and this was seconded by CJA. The motion carried unanimously.


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.