Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 August 2006 [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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.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
  • Dan Alexander (DA)
  • Marla Azinger (MA)
  • Leo Bicknell (LB)
  • Bill Darte (BD)
  • Matt Pounsett (MP)
  • Lea Roberts (LR)
  • Robert Seastrom (RS)
  • Stacy Taylor (ST)
  • Suzanne Woolf (SW)

ARIN Staff:

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

ARIN Counsel:

  • Stephen M. Ryan


  • Paul Andersen
  • Cathy Aronson
  • Alec Peterson


  • Mark Kosters
  • Alex Rubenstein

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. RP requested adding an item for Counsel to provide an update on ARIN legal matters; and, an informational item on travel under any other business. The Chair added these items as A. and B. under Any Other Business.

3. Approval of the Minutes

The minutes of July 20, 2006 were approved as written by general consent.

4. Policy Proposal 2006-1: Residential Customer Privacy

MA stated she had received a response from the author indicating that the author did not want to revise the proposal. RP stated that there was consensus at the last ARIN meeting that the AC work with author on revisions; and that fact will be reported at the next ARIN meeting, in St. Louis in October, as a matter of record. He explained that the community can then decide what to do on this policy proposal.

The Chair asked MA to post a message to the PPML, in order to encourage discussion, regarding the fact that the AC is looking for further direction on this proposal since revisions have not been made; and that this would also be discussed at the next ARIN meeting. MA agreed. The Chair called for any further discussion. There were no further comments.

5. Policy Proposal 2006-2: Micro-Allocations for Internal Infrastructure

ST stated that she has worked with author to separate editorial changes from the actual policy that is to be introduced. This has been posted to the PPML by ARIN staff. She stated that no discussion has taken place to date, but this proposal will be discussed at the next ARIN meeting.

RP requested ST send a message to the PPML to encourage discussion 30 to 35 days prior to the ARIN meeting. ST agreed. The Chair called for any further discussion. There were no further comments.

6. Policy Proposal 2006-3: Capturing Originations in Templates

SW gave a brief history of the policy and stated that the author had contacted her and MK before the deadline and was not sure of what revisions to suggest. SW suggested that the author contact ARIN staff to discuss the matter, and also have a public discussion at the next ARIN meeting. SW felt that resubmitting the proposed policy would be premature at this time.

Discussion ensued regarding what type of revisions are needed, and what amount of interest, if any, there is for this policy proposal. After discussing, the Chair suggested SW post a message to the PPML to encourage discussion on the level of interest, types of revisions, and or abandonment of this policy proposal. SW agreed. The Chair called for any further discussion. There were no further comments.

Due to a conflict in her schedule, MA requested to discuss item 9 B. at this time (4:33 pm EDT). All agreed.

  1. AC Projects

B. v6 Multi-homing BCP. MA stated that this is an unresolved issue, and had asked the IETF for advice. She stated the IETF is working on a document to include their suggested solutions on what would work best and could be technically implemented. She stated she is also attending the APNIC meeting in Taiwan in September and will be meeting with v6 people there to ask their suggested solutions in an effort to try to get global coordination on this issue. The Chair called for any further discussion. There were no further comments.

After discussion, MA left the call. The Chair resumed the meeting at the next item in line in the agenda.

7. Policy Proposal 2006-6: Bulk WHOIS Agreement Expiration Clarification

Historical review: At the AC’s May 25, 2006 meeting, the AC was informed that during the Board’s meeting of May 9, 2006, Bill Woodcock, as the author, suggested he withdraw the proposal from the policy proposal process after ARIN staff has worked with him to resolve the issue. It was the sense of the Board that this was not a public policy matter, and the course of action suggested by Bill Woodcock should be taken.

ND provided an update stating that ARIN staff is addressing Bill’s concerns and should be completed within the next 30 days. Bill can then withdraw the proposal prior to the next ARIN meeting.

The Chair suggested tabling the issue for 30 days and addressing it at the AC’s next meeting. There were no objections.

8. Status of Ratification of Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) Language

This policy was approved by the ARIN Board at their meeting on July 27, 2006.

9. AC Projects

A. Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) IPv6 Editing. MP stated that he, PA, and LR have identified occurrences of best practices in the NRPM, and found only one instance. However, in doing so, they also found 3 other issues within the NRPM:

  1. The occurrence of routing best practices in IPv6 in Section;
  2. Missing definitions in Section 4.3; and,
  3. In Section 9, the question of whether or not the mailing list AUP should be in NRPM since it is not related to numbers assignments.

MP requested the AC’s feed back and suggested scheduling a time at the next ARIN meeting to encourage further discussion before recommending anything to the Board.

RP stated that the mailing list AUP was put into the NRPM because at the time, there were loose documents that needed to have a home. He also suggested adding it to the Internet Resource Policy Evaluation Process (IRPEP), because it addresses the PPML, and the PPML exists due to the policy process; or it could be a stand-alone statement by the Board.

RP further explained that the Board was actively working on a Suggestion Process and a Consultation Process, and had approved the Suggestion Process at their last Board meeting. He stated that both processes would be implemented before the ARIN meeting. Consultations would occur on issues such as the AUP.

Discussion ensued on the subject of best practices and where it should be moved to, and who should be responsible for it. RP raised the question of whether ARIN should be in the business of best practices, or if it should be given to another organization, for example NANOG. RP suggested possibly a presentation be given at the upcoming NANOG meeting. LR volunteered to give a presentation.

LR stated that at the last IETF meeting, she followed up on a discussion that best practices reside with the IETF, and stated that the V6 Op Chair is interested in this idea. LR asked for volunteers to draft a suggestion to the IETF.

MP then asked if the AC should draft a proposal for the spring 2007 ARIN meeting regarding removing the middle of Section on assignment address space size from v6 assignments from RIRs.

RP suggested, at the next meeting, that the AC recommend to the ARIN Board that the text be removed. All agreed.

B. v6 Multi-homing BCP. Discussed above.

C. PPML Polling. DA stated he had worked with EB researching this issue and it had raised 3 main questions:

  1. How to do it and provide anonymity to the responders;
  2. How to make it simple to use; and,
  3. How to address security and date integrity.

DA requested feedback from the AC on: outsourcing vs. in-house; web-based vs. email; and, liability. He explained that polling on the PPML would be a way to capture information from many people, not just the primary responders, providing a voice of anonymity. Polling would increase participation and level of consensus.

Due to another commitment, Counsel respectfully requested discussing item 10. A. at this time, (5:00 pm EDT). All agreed.

  1. A. Any Other Business / ARIN Legal Matters.

Counsel provided a brief update to the AC on ARIN’s current litigation matters.

After the update, Counsel left the call.

Lengthy discussion ensued on the matter of polling with MP noting there was a split in the AC as to whether the issue should be further pursued. The Chair called for objections to DA continuing his research. BD volunteered to work with DA if he continued investigating.

The Chair tasked DA to rank the priorities based on this discussion, and report back with suggestions on moving forward. DA stated that web-based polling seemed more flexible and capable of doing different things and he would continue his project on that course.

RP stated that if/when the matter gets to the point where polling would be desired, the AC must recommend it to the Board because it is a Board decision.

10. Any Other Business

A. ARIN Legal Matters. Counsel provided a brief update to the AC earlier in the meeting.

B. Travel: Airline Tickets. RP stated that ARIN is instituting a broader use of e-tickets due to the airline’s rise in cost of generating paper tickets. He stated that, in general, e-tickets will be used for travel within the USA, and between the USA and most major cities globally. He explained that problems can occur with e-tickets when the final destination is not a major city and that, at the end point, you may need a paper ticket to take some kind of action. In cases such as these, the decision will be made by ARIN to purchase paper tickets for the traveler. RP added that if the traveler feels they need a paper ticket where normally an e-ticket would be provided, ARIN will address that matter at the time travel is being arranged.

The Chair called for any further discussion. There were no further comments.

11. Adjournment

The Chair adjourned the meeting by general consent at 5:18 p.m. EDT.


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.