Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 08 April 2009 [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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.



  • John Sweeting, Chair
  • Marla Azinger (MA), Vice Chair
  • Dan Alexander (DA)
  • Paul Andersen, (PA)
  • Leo Bicknell (LB)
  • Marc Crandall (MC)
  • Owen DeLong (OD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • Stacy Hughes (SH)
  • Scott Leibrand (SL)
  • Lea Roberts, (LR)
  • Heather Schiller (HS)
  • Robert Seastrom (RS)

ARIN Staff:

  • Thérèse Colosi, Scribe
  • John Curran, Interim CEO/ARIN Board Chair
  • Nate Davis, COO
  • Susan Hamlin, Director, Member Services
  • Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services


  • Stephen M. Ryan, ESQ


  • Cathy Aronson (CA)


  • Bill Darte (BD)

1. Welcome

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

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. SL requested a discussion on Polling questions to the Community on 2009-1. The Chair added this topic to Any Other Business (item 12).

3. Approval of the Minutes

SL moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of March 19, 2009, as written.”

OD seconded the motion. The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously with no objections.

4. Draft Policy 2008-3: Community Networks IPv6 Allocation

LR stated that edits were made after the last AC meeting, changing the wording from ‘allocations’ to ‘assignments’, and this was posted to the AC’s list. She noted the proposal title still referenced the word ‘Allocation’. ND stated that ARIN staff will address this oversight.

LR then stated she had sent an email to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) pointing it out the edits in response to staff comments, and that this proposal was ready to go to the ARIN meeting for discussion. She stated that there had been no further changes or comments.

5. Draft Policy 2008-7: Identify Invalid WHOIS POC’s

MA stated that HS had suggested changing ‘address blocks’ to ‘number resources’. All AC members agreed to this change, and minor edits have been posted to PPML and on the AC’s Wiki.

6. Draft Policy 2009-1: Transfer Policy

DA stated that much discussion had taken place regarding this proposal on the PPML. He suggested that the AC prepare the input and any suggestions regarding any changes, so that the discussion at the ARIN meeting can be focused on the merits of the proposal itself, and not become sidetracked.

JC stated, as a point of information, that although this proposal is not a work item to which the AC can make changes, the ARIN Board is actively interested in the AC’s recommendations - if any aspects should change based on the AC’s judgment and input from Community.

DA agreed that the AC owes the Board feedback after the ARIN Meeting, and needs to offer suggestions regarding clarity. He explained that rather than waiting until after the ARIN Meeting to make recommendations, the AC should have a basis to begin with prior to the meeting to steer the discussion in a more constructive way.

The Chair stated that the AC will hold a meeting with the ARIN Board on Sunday April 26, and can discuss strategy there, and also at the Open Policy Hour, that evening. He asked DA if he wanted to discuss this issue at the present time. DA stated he was in the process of compiling the notes and PPML feedback. DA had posted an initial summary to the AC; however, MA also posted good additional information, and received feedback as well. He stated that he still needed to compile the results of MA’s post.

JC stated, as a point of order, that the AC is an elected body and one of its purposes is to judge policy. At end of the day, the Board is capable of figuring out Community support for coming up with a proposal that will garner a high level of support, is technically sound, and accomplishes the right goals. He explained that the AC needs to provide the Board with a judgment of the right aspects of 2009-1, and explain the pros and cons for the various sections. He stated the proposal will be forwarded to Last Call, and suggested the possibility of conducting a poll for community input. The AC would then have five (5) days after the ARIN Meeting to make their recommendations to the Board.

The Chair reiterated for clarification that 2008-6 has been adopted by the Board. JC stated that 2008-6 is definitely ARIN policy. The Chair stated that 2009-1 has been crafted to make changes to 2008-6; and that HS had sent a redlined copy to the AC for review.

HS then explained that the Board accepted 2008-6, but needs to fit it into ARIN’s Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). She redlined the existing policy 2008-6 and proposal 2009-1. Her purpose was to see which of the issues were the subject of serious argument, and how those issues fit into either edits or existing text.

SL stated that because proposal 2009-1 eliminates the header and the title, ‘IPv4’ should be put back into the text. HS stated that the shepherds have a list of the pros and cons, and how many people shared that view; so that when the AC reviews it after the ARIN meeting, they will have a clear understanding of any restriction to ‘IPv4’ or not. DA stated that he will post what he has to the AC’s website by the end of this week.

The Chair advised the shepherds to strictly concentrate on changes between 2008-6 and 2009-1. OD stated he had posted a list of changes. The Chair asked him to work with DA and DF. OD agreed.

DA asked JC who would be presenting proposal 2009-1 at the ARIN meeting. JC stated it is the Board’s obligation to present it, and that he would be doing so.

The Chair asked JC if this would be discussed at the AC’s meeting on Sunday with the Board. JC stated the purpose of that meeting is to discuss the PDP, and the AC, and improving the process. He stated that they may not have time to discuss 2009-1 at that particular meeting.

JC suggested that if the AC has its take on its recommendation to the Board before the Public Policy Meeting (PPM), they can make a presentation regarding where the discussion has been going, and any initial conclusions, following the presentation on 2009-1. It was the sense of the AC that this was a good idea.

7. Draft Policy 2009-2: Depleted IPv4 Reserves

SL stated this proposal was ready to go for the ARIN meeting and that there had been no changes made, or further discussion on the PPML.

8. Draft Policy 2009-3: Global Policy Proposal: Allocation of IPv4 Blocks to Regional Internet Registries

SL stated that one idea for editing the proposal was to make it by size and not by type – the larger blocks get returned, the smaller ones would not. MA stated that the text put forward should remain locked as-is, and be discussed at the ARIN PPM, so the Community understands what the ARIN region is proposing.
The Chair stated that the text is posted, and comments have been noted. DF stated that he would like to keep the text locked as well, collect a list of issues; and then, encourage discussion based on that information. SL agreed.

Counsel stated that ARIN is currently spending significant resources in this area by crafting the Legacy RSA and recovering space. He felt the proposal lacked incentive for any RIR to recover space, and thought this was something worth thinking about. He stated it needed to be thought through, pre-run-out.

DF pointed out that if a block size were determined at this point in time, as depletion is happening, people will want that size to be adjusted smaller and smaller. He stated that this will lead to revising the policy over and over.

The Chair stated this topic would be discussed further on the AC’s mailing list. All agreed.

PA left the call at this time (4:41 pm EDT).

9. Policy Proposal “IPv4 Recovery Fund”

Draft Policy 2009-4: IPv4 Recovery Fund. LB, as author, provided an update as the shepherds were not on the call. He stated that new text had been posted to the AC list on Monday, and in the discussion section of their Wiki. He reviewed the staff responses, and there were minor edits, but stated those could wait until after the ARIN meeting.

LB moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council takes the changes posted to the Advisory Council’s Wiki for Draft Policy 2009-4, and makes it the current Draft Policy to be sent to the Public Policy Mailing List; and, to be discussed at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting in San Antonio.”

SL seconded the motion. The Chair called for comments. Counsel provided comments protected by the Client/Attorney privilege.

The motion carried with 11 in favor and 1 abstention (LB).

10. Proposal #84: IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks

HS moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled “IPv6 Multiple Discrete Networks”, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

OD seconded the motion. The Chair called for discussion. SL thought it was a good idea and stated, for transparency, that his company would use IPv6 in this vein. LB observed that it was a good policy to consider; however, a wider set of issues needed to be addressed in a broader category. He explained for example, that there are things in the v4 policy that are not in the v6 policy; or, things in v6 that are dependent in v4. This current proposal cleans up only a small aspect of that. In a world without v4, it will be a problem.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

11. Proposal #85: Sunset 2008-6 on schedule

SL moved:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled “Sunset 2008-6 on schedule”, abandons it; but will work on revisions through the 2009-1 process. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

MA seconded the motion. The Chair called for discussion. OD explained that when he wrote this text the Board had not yet informed anyone that the changes would be in 2009-1, but were in 2008-6 at the time. JC stated that was the only thing that could have been done at the time. LB stated that 2008-6 with the sunset clause is in NRPM but is on hold, and is a separate proposal from 2009-1; if that clause were removed from 2009-1, this proposal is not needed.

OD suggested amending the motion to integrate the two. SL stated that under normal circumstances that could be done, but reiterated that the AC does not have the power to make changes to 2009-1.

ND stated that there are three things to implementing policy:

  1. Implementation to the NRPM;
  2. Visibility to the Community; and,
  3. Registration Services begins processing Number Resource Requests, according to the policy visible to Community.

ND stated that JC had indicated that 2008-6 is pending implementation. It includes the fact that 2008-6 officially is not in the NRPM. At this point, ARIN is not evaluating policy under 2008-6, nor does the Community submit requests under this policy. It is not implemented yet, it is on hold.

JC thanked ND for the clarification. He stated that the AC does not need to specify this as a change. They can hold this text as a separate policy proposal to introduce a sunset clause. When 2009-1 is discussed and finalized, the AC will have this left over as a work item. Alternatively, the AC can include it in its recommendation to the Board, and trust that the Board will include it.

The motion carried with 11 in favor, and 2 abstentions (LB, OD) via roll call.

LR left the call at this time (5:05 pm EDT).

12. Any Other Business

Polling Questions to the Community on 2009-1. MA stated she had put together a basic document of polling questions for 2009-1 and wanted to discuss it with the 2 shepherds and ARIN staff. Her thought was to take any proposals that the AC feels needed to be polled, get questions crafted, and give to staff to post to the PPML. SL liked the approach, and suggested a poll be done before the ARIN PPM. After the PPM, the AC could decide on whether it should be a standard in the future.

The Chair stated that he, MA, and staff will figure out the timelines after this call. 2009-1 will be the one focused upon for polling, in addition to any other policy proposals.

Counsel personally suggested it was an inopportune time to poll. He stated that the poll that might result would be in contrast to the opinions in the room at the PPM. This is not a classic polling situation. He advised the AC to craft questions to be answered in the room, with a pro and con position on each issue, and then a related discussion. He stated this was just his opinion, but he did not see a poll helping in getting back on the right track at this time. He felt an in-person discussion would be more telling, and subsequent to that, the poll would be more valuable.

The Chair stated that a poll was suggested on the PPML, and several people posted that it would be a good thing to do; therefore there may be an expectation from the Community. MA stated that there would not be time to conduct a poll after the ARIN PPM due to the 5 day turnaround for recommendations to the Board. JC explained that, to the extent that the timeline needs to be changed to accommodate the poll, the AC can make that recommendation to the Board. He advised not to let that hinder the AC, and that they should advise the Board.

The Chair stated that everyone realizes the pros and cons of polling, and that it is another tool along with the PPML and ARIN PPM.

SL stated that he felt Counsel was correct. He felt that if the poll was conducted after the ARIN PPM, but before Last Call, the AC would obtain more informed answers. OD also agreed.

The Chair stated that some AC members had indicated a preference for conducting a poll before the ARIN PPM. DA stated he wanted a poll prior to the PPM to better gauge the Community’s opinions, than only from the feedback from PPML and the PPM. He stated that the silent people who do not post on the PPML, or go up to the microphone at the PPM, would have another venue in which to voice their opinions.

LB felt with the heightened sensitivity in the Community, the likelihood of getting objective answers will be low at this time. He stated he is skeptical about polling. DA asked LB if he felt it would be better served if polling were done after the PPM. LB felt that the AC was not qualified to phrase polling questions correctly. He stated that the last pool results did not correspond with the in-person discussion at the last PPM, and the posts on the PPML.

The Chair agreed, stating that a poll would have to be either very simple, or the AC could enlist the help of a professional; but, there may not be time to do that. He stated a yes/no answer is not always clear cut, as there are middle-of-the-road views. He thanked LB for his thoughts. He asked if LB felt there was any value to the previous poll. LB felt that the poll conducted on 2008-2 was useful, and the AC did learn from it. On specific issues between that, and the PPML/PPM, there was some correlation. However, the same people stated completely opposite views in direct connection with what was stated in the poll, and that is what concerned him.

JC reiterated the bit of Counsel’s advice stating that he too was concerned because currently there is more heat than reasoned response. He felt it dangerous to poll now before a deliberative discussion at the PPM could be held.

After opinions were expressed, it was the sense of the AC that the poll be conducted after the ARIN PPM. DF suggested someone send message to this effect to the PPML, so that the Community is clear on the issue. SL volunteered.

Counsel personally felt that for proposal 2009-1, the AC craft a good paragraph for and against each change the Board made, feeling this may provide value to the structure of the discussion. He stated he would work with the AC if they desired.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:26 p.m. EDT. ST moved to adjourn and RS seconded the motion. 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.