Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 11 November 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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.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
  • Dan Alexander (DA)
  • Cathy Aronson (CA)
  • Marla Azinger (MA)
  • Leo Bicknell (LB)
  • Owen Delong (OD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • Scott Leibrand (SL)
  • Lea Roberts (LR)
  • Heather Schiller (HS)
  • Robert Seastrom (RS)

Minute Taker

  • Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Einar Bohlin, Policy Analyst
  • Nate Davis, COO
  • Leslie Nobile, Director, Registration Services


  • Stephen M. Ryan


  • Paul Andersen
  • Marc Crandall
  • Bill Darte
  • Stacy Hughes

1. Welcome

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

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for comments. DF stated that if the AC does not use their standing rule, he will raise the question of amending it to clearly reflect the AC’s intent. This was noted by the Chair.

3. Interim Appointment to the Advisory Council (AC)

The AC needs to determine whether to: either use their standing rule, “Procedure for the Appointment of an Interim Member to the ARIN Advisory Council” that they approved on March 27, 2003; leave the position vacant; or, use another criterion to appoint someone to the vacant seat left by the resignation of Paul Andersen (as of 12/31/09).

The Chair reviewed the standing rule, which states:

In the event that one of the elected positions on the ARIN Advisory Council is vacated before the end of the term of that position, the following procedure may, at the option of the current AC, be used to select an individual to fill that position until the next regularly scheduled ARIN AC election. At that time, the remaining term of that position (if any) will be open to the general election process.

  1. When there are runner-up nominees from the previous AC election who received at least 5% of the total votes cast, the AC will ask the runner-up with the highest number of votes if he/she is willing to serve until the next regular election. The AC may continue down the list of candidates, in order of highest number of votes and still within the 5% category, until a replacement is found.

  2. When there are no eligible candidates from the prior election, the AC may, by majority vote, appoint an interim representative.

The President pointed out that, because of this process, you may chose the person from the election with the next highest amount of votes. He noted that would be Tom Zeller, and that Tom is aware the seat is open and may wonder if it applies to him. He also noted that Tom is willing to serve, but understands that the seat may not be filled in that manner.

The Chair pointed out that the term for the vacated seat would end on December 31, 2010, as it is only valid for the remainder of Paul Andersen’s term.

The Chair stated that prior to any motions being made, 3 members will address the 3 possible avenues, as follows:

MA provided rationale for leaving the position vacant until the next election. She stated this would be a compromise. A one-year term for a new AC member would not provide enough time for experience to that member, and put undue pressure on them. Their seat would be up for re-election at the end of the year. The AC will have 14 members and she did not find this would be difficult for the AC to handle. She pointed out that in the past, members have had to step out for months at a time, and there were no issues for the AC as a whole when such needs arose. She felt it was easier on the AC to only have the 2 newly-elected members. She felt leaving the seat vacant would be least impacting on the AC and voting membership.

CA addressed the reasons for following the procedure outlined above. She stated that the AC approved their standing rule, and has used it successfully. In any one election, the AC can acquire up to five new and inexperienced members. In this instance, the AC is acquiring only 2, and if the AC chooses one more, they will still have 12 very experienced members residing on the Council.

RS spoke in favor of filling the position following the guidelines presented in the ARIN Bylaws. He pointed out that the staggered term expirations were built in for a reason: to keep from having many inexperienced Council members on the Council at any one time. This also gives new members time to get up to speed on procedures, etc. RS stated that the AC is not having any problem in this area. He noted that a new council member who is not experienced, and only has a one year term, is at a disadvantage for re-election when the term is up; and, that there are various people available to possibly fill the vacant seat who have served previously on the Council. RS noted that it took him about one year to feel effective on the AC. He noted that the Bylaws allow the AC to exercise their discretion; and, that the Bylaws are wide and non-constraining for this purpose.

The Chair thanked each of them. He asked RS what he has done to try to acquire qualified people. RS stated he indirectly contacted three previous members of the AC. Two of the parties were unreachable, and one was interested.

The Chair called for discussion on the above points. He asked each AC member to state which method they favored. After each member offered their views, it was the sense of the AC to vote on a motion to fill the position.

It was moved by OD and seconded by CA to fill the vacant position on the ARIN Council as of January 1, 2010.

The motion carried with 9 in favor and 2 against (MA, LB) via roll call.

It was moved by RS and seconded by OD to appoint Matt Pounsett to fill the position vacated by Paul Andersen from January 1, 2010 to December 31, 2010.

The Chair called for discussion. The President pointed out that the AC may want to vote on whether to use the procedure or not before voting on filling the position in this manner. He noted it was not incorrect to do it as proposed, however. LB stated that if the AC appoints this person, it may look like the path of least resistance. He stated he was not in favor. DF did not support the motion because the candidates from the election were not considered. He felt the AC needed a process of how to nominate, and not just choosing one person that one member has contacted. LR stated she was not in favor because she felt the standing rule was the right process to use.

The President suggested this person could be brought in if the AC sets off the process of looking at candidates, and he is the best qualified.

The motion failed with 5 in favor, 5 against (DA, CA, LB, DF, LR) and 1 abstention (SL) via roll call.

It was moved by DF and seconded by LB to appoint the position using the AC’s standing rule as documented.

The Chair called for discussion. OD felt that the standing rule didn’t yield the best candidate, and following it is not right thing to do. MA stated that others feel the AC needs to look at the other candidates.

The motion to use the standing rule failed with 5 in favor, 5 against (MA, OD, HS, RS, JS) and 1 abstention (SL).

LR left the teleconference at this time (5:08 p.m. EST).

It was moved by OD and seconded by SL that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council (AC) consider available candidates both from the last election, and from the list proposed of former AC members; that the AC perform outreach to the candidates to solicit what the AC needs to make this decision, and then by secret ballot of the AC, elect one of them.”

DF suggested a friendly amendment calling for the AC Chair to collect the nominations. OD accepted friendly amendment.

LB stated that he needed to leave the teleconference. He suggested the AC end this meeting, letting the members speak to the candidates, craft motions, and discuss this matter at next meeting. He stated he was against this motion. RS stated he was in favor of the motion and the secret ballot. DF stated he too was in favor. He stated a deadline was needed.

The Chair pointed out that this is the exact reason for standing rule. The President advised the AC of the timeliness of this matter, as the AC will want the new members to be added to their mailing list. In addition, the new members need to be able to travel to the AC face to face meeting in January, and so that they can get up to speed.

The President pointed out that a motion to adjourn is always valid even if another motion is on the floor, if indeed LB was moving to adjourn. He further stated that if a seat is vacant, the ability to fill or leave vacant is not effective until January 1, 2010. The Board can consider this as well, between now and January 1st, as the Bylaws are in the realm of the Board, including ambiguity of standing rules. He stated there could be a concern about efficiency and the AC’s busy docket.

DF queried if the AC should recognize LB’s suggestion to adjourn. LB stated he was not making any motion, but did need to leave the teleconference very soon.

The Chair asked OD if the motion he made mean 5% of the vote? OD replied no, the amendment states the AC makes the nominations to Chair. ARIN Staff was tasked to set up an on line process for the AC’s secret ballot.

4. Adjournment

DA moved to adjourn at 5:18 p.m. EST. The Chair stated this item would be tabled until the AC’s next call on November 19, 2009. CA seconded the motion.

Given the nature of this topic, the Chair called a roll call vote to adjourn the meeting.

The motion carried with 7 in favor, and 2 against (OD, RS).


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.