Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 21 June 2012 [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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.


Advisory Council Attendees:

  • John Sweeting, Chair
  • Scott Leibrand, Vice Chair (SL)
  • Dan Alexander (DA)
  • Cathy Aronson (CA)
  • Kevin Blumberg (KB)
  • Bill Darte (BD)
  • Owen DeLong (OD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • Chris Grundemann (CG)
  • Marty Hannigan (MH)
  • Stacy Hughes (SH)
  • Chris Morrow (CM)
  • Bill Sandiford (BS)
  • Rob Seastrom (RS)

Minute Taker

  • Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
  • Einar Bohlin, Sr. Policy Analyst (EB)
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Nate Davis, COO
  • Leslie Nobile, Registration Services Director (LN)


  • Stephen Ryan, Esq.


  • Heather Schiller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:08 PM EDT. The presence of quorum was noted. It was acknowledged that RS would be delayed.

2. Agenda Review

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

3. Approval of the Minutes

It was moved by SH, and seconded by RS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 17 May 2012, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no objections.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Policies Adopted by the ARIN Board

Provided for information. Based upon the AC’s recommendation, the ARIN Board adopted the following policies during their meeting on 06 June 2012:

  • ARIN-2011-1: ARIN Inter-RIR Transfers
  • ARIN-2012-1: Clarifying Requirements for IPv4 Transfers
  • ARIN-2012-3: ASN Transfers

ND noted that implementation is scheduled to be no later than 30 July, but will, most likely, be earlier estimating on 18 July.

MH joined the call (4:15 PM EDT).

5. ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement

CA stated she was awaiting information from HS, who was currently unavailable. The Chair reiterated that the text needed to be sent to the AC and Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) as soon as possible. The final text would be determined for presentation at the ARIN meeting in October in Dallas, Texas by the AC’s August meeting.

6. ARIN-Prop-166: Clarify /29 Assignment Identification Requirement

CG stated that the text is being reviewed and he was awaiting PPML comments. The Chair reiterated the deadlines for getting the proposal finalized.

7. ARIN-Prop-167: Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multi-homers

CA asked if a motion to make this proposal a draft policy to present at the next ARIN meeting would be in order at this time. The Chair instructed her to send her request via email to him, and that he would forward it for ARIN staff and legal review. He stated a motion could be made at the AC’s next meeting in July. CA agreed to send the request.

8. ARIN-Prop-168: Promote 4-Byte ASN Usage

It was moved by DF, and seconded by OD, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitles ‘ARIN-Prop-168: Promote 4-Byte ASN Usage, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that there was nominal support but not a lot of opposition either. The staff comments from the clarity and understanding review were complex. One useful thing he found was selecting between 2 and 4 byte ASNs. He was unsure that issue needed to be policy however. He noted that there were other objectionable components in the proposal as well. The Chair asked LN if someone wanted a 4 byte ASN, could they currently get it? LN replied that they could.

KB stated that many of the things this policy was looking to do were operational in nature. He considered it a negative policy and not good for the community, as it was attempting to do things beyond ARIN’s scope and in “mean ways”. He considered there to be flexibility currently with regard to 4 byte ASNs, and that demands for 2 bytes are due to operational needs. LN explained that most of the community was unable to use 4 bytes, and ARIN was trading them to 2 bytes. KB stated that this policy changes operational issues, and makes it difficult for ARIN staff to do their job.

The President joined at this time (4:20 PM EDT).

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

The Chair reminded the shepherds to submit their reason for abandoning to ARIN staff for posting by 25 June.

9. ARIN-prop-170: Transfer of Number Resources in case of Bankruptcy

SL stated that he had spoken with the author, and they agreed that this proposal was a no-op, and that it was unnecessary.

It was moved by SL, and seconded by BD, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘ARIN-prop-170: Transfer of Number Resources in case of Bankruptcy,’ abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that the proposal, as written, applies 8.2 policy to bankruptcy, for which a policy already exists. He believed this proposal would not to do anything, and was unnecessary and that the author agreed.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

SL stated he would send the reasoning to ARIN staff by 25 June.

10. ARIN-prop-171: Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and Legacy Resources

OD stated he had not yet received a response from RS. He proposed to abandon this proposal due to limited support and vehement opposition, and considered it a no-op.

It was moved by OD, and seconded by CA, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal ‘ARIN-prop-171: Section 8.4 Modifications: ASN and Legacy Resources’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated that comments on the PPML were opposed, that the proposal did not do anything useful, and did quite a bit of harm. SL stated he would abstain from the vote, as he was reluctant to decide before giving the proposal a chance to go before the community. He believed that there were aspects of the proposal that were not yet ready.

The motion carried with 11 in favor, 1 against (MH), and 1 abstention (SL) via roll call.

OD stated he would send the reasoning to ARIN staff by 25 June.

11. ARIN-prop-172: Additional Definition for NRPM Section 2 – Legacy Resources

It was moved by CM, and seconded by SL, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘ARIN-prop-172: Additional Definition for NRPM Section 2 – Legacy Resources’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. CM stated that the proposal provided clarification on the definition, it could be simple, and that putting it into the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) is a good plan, with the community’s support.

CG agreed it could be something simple, but did not believe that it would be. He stated that the words “legacy” and “resources” are only mentioned two times in one sentence in the NRPM. He thought it best to remove the words from NRPM, rather than to define them. Once they were defined, further policy would use it as a distinction, and it would be poisonous to the community, going forward.

OD was also opposed, not to defining legacy registration, but stated that there was no such thing as ‘legacy resources’. He stated that if it were codified, it would be erroneous, would extend beyond ARIN’s scope, and would be a major step in the wrong direction.

DF pondered what the purpose was of defining the term, as it did not clarify anything that needed clarification. In general, he was opposed to the motion, but was open to being convinced if there was good reason. He did not see the point to adding a definition to the NRPM that did not clarify usage at this point in time.

RS joined at this time (4:34 PM EDT).

CM countered that, with the term ‘resources’ or ‘registration’, there were many people that use ‘legacy’ and other terms with these terms, and they all mean different things. He believed defining them to be beneficial.

BS agreed. He stated it was a term that was frequently used on the PPML, and that there was a misunderstanding of what was meant. He was unsure that this definition, as written, was ‘the one’, but believed that the terms should be defined.

KB was in support of the motion, but stated that the text needs work and that the point of adding it to the AC’s docket was to perform the work. The PPML recently had a lot of usage of the word ‘legacy’ in the community’s messages. This separated the Section 8.3 discussion, and focused on how ARIN dealt with legacy. There was no road map with all of the complexities of all of the policies, and it was getting very complicated. He considered it beneficial to look at defining the terms.

DA pointed out that he had sent an email to the PPML that he was against defining the term. Being in the definition section, it is important to be clear. He stated that the discussion was talking about assigning attributes to address space different from all other address space. By opening this door there would be a risk to later policies that dealt with this space, and any policy that dealt with it. Those rights existed in perpetuity no matter who had the registration for that block. The legacy rights remain no matter who had it, and that this had been a huge issue with transfers.

BD stated that he did not like the policy, but that the discussion the AC was currently engaged in was excellent. To discuss the distinctions between legacy registrations and addresses, etc., was absolutely needed and would enlighten the community, and would make it transparent to everyone. How it got defined was irrelevant. As many definitions for clarity as possible was a good thing. He was in favor of the motion.

CG stated that he did not disagree with the folks in favor of the idea of a definition; however, he was unsure whether or not terms used outside of the NRPM need to be defined within the NRPM. If there was no use for them, then they did not belong in the NRPM.

SL spoke to the statement DA had made about ‘rights in perpetuity’. He did not believe that was what was desired with regard to this definition. He considered it proper to define legacy registrations as registrations that were made before a certain time, and registrations that would not qualify under a Registration Services Agreement (RSA). The fact that ARIN used it in in the Legacy Registration Services Agreement (LRSA) was a data point that indicated relevancy to policy. If it invited bad policy to be written, those policies would be dealt with as they arose. It would be useful to have the community agree and define ‘legacy registrations’ under the LRSA, and normal registrations under the RSA. He considered the proposal to be a useful first step in the process; and he supported putting it on the AC’s docket for further work.

BS stated that the terms were used in the NRPM with a lack of quality, and believed that it made sense to define them. If it encouraged others to exploit it, fear of that should not stop us.

RS agreed with BD and SL stating that he did not support the proposal defining contentious terms, but that he supported the motion, as this issue needed further discussion.

DA stated that he agreed very much that this discussion should be had, but it should be in the proper context. This proposal tried to define a type of address space rather than how IP space should be managed, which is a discussion that belongs in the IETF. By putting this in the definitions section, the proposal tried to attach attributes to the IP address themselves, rather than the registration, which was not in the scope of the PDP.

DF stated that the term was used in the NRPM and read the sentences to the AC to make the point that defining ‘legacy’ did not make it clearer. Putting a precise definition to the terms did not add clarity to the concepts in these sentences.

Counsel provided an attorney-client confidential brief to the AC on the legal implications of this matter.

RS withdrew his statement of support based on feedback from Counsel, stating he did not support motion, but that an internal discussion would be acceptable.

BS also stated he would not support the motion, as long as the AC continued discussion of it. He asked what MH’s thoughts were, as he was the author of this proposal.

MH stated legacy holders want to be part of the community and this would be a small carrot for them. This proposal would set a foundation for discussion of the definition. He believed it behooved the AC to move the discussion forward, and would rather spend legal dollars on this, than on fighting people.

BD expressed sentiment similar to RS, and that he would be willing to take back his support of the motion if a concrete timeframe were determined for when the AC discussed the topic, and for creating a framework to understand all the legal issues, so that the AC can spring from the same place in the conversation that would be put forth to the community. He believed, like MH, that it would be a useful conversation for the community to have sooner rather than later. He wanted to see a timeframe stated and adhered to.

MH stated the AC could discuss it themselves, but the matter would still need policy – it was a delay of a discussion and was not useful.

DF stated that he supported discussion, as this was probably the most important discussion since bringing up transfers. He believed it mattered how the AC started the discussion; and supported working with ARIN Counsel to come up with how to deal with the matter. It was as volatile to the community as was the matter of transfers. He was in favor of abandoning the proposal, stepping back, and then constructively moving forward. He opposed the motion.

KB stated he would abstain, as it was definitely a qualification issue at this point in his understanding.

The motion to accept onto the AC’s docket failed with 9 against, 3 in favor (BD, MH, CM), and 2 abstentions (KB, SL) via roll call.

The Chair tasked CM and BS to provide the reasoning for the AC’s decision in order to be posted to the PPML. He reminded them to provide it by 25 June to ARIN staff. CM and BS agreed to do so.

12. Improve Communications Group (IC) Report

The Chair called for an update.

IC members: KB, BD, OD, CG. KB stated that he had no update at this time, but would post an update to the AC’s list next week.

CM left the call at this time (5:09 p.m. EDT).

Counsel stated he needed to leave the call at 5:10 pm EDT, for 5 minutes.

The Chair listed the Shepherds for new proposals as:

ARIN –prop-173: RS and SH
ARIN-prop- 174: MH and DA
ARIN-prop- 175, CM and DF

The Chair noted that these proposals would be discussed during the next AC teleconference in July. He urged the AC to use the proposal templates, as they were very helpful, and to familiarize themselves with the Policy Development Process (PDP) timelines for presentation at the ARIN meeting in Dallas, to be held in October.

13. Changes to the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM)

EB stated that the President posted the AC’s recommended change to their list, for reference when the new NRPM is rolled out. The Chair called for any objections. There were no objections to this change. ND stated that out of 4 changes, the one that the AC agreed upon would be forwarded to the Board.

The AC reviewed the most recent version of the text. The AC concurred, with one objection (MH) that the change should be forwarded to the ARIN Board for adoption.

BD suggested that since MH was opposed, he should expound upon it, so that the Board would have clarification regarding his objection. The Chair agreed and called for any objections to this suggestion. There were no objections.

There were 12 concurrences, 1 objection (MH), and 2 missing AC members (CM and HS) in the final outcome.

BS asked MH if he would codify his objection. The Chair stated that MH could provide his objection via email. MH stated he would comment on the PPML.

14. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. There were no comments.

15. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:20 p.m. EDT.

OD moved to adjourn, seconded by RS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.


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.