Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 16 August 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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.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)
  • Chris Morrow (CM)
  • Bill Sandiford (BS)
  • Rob Seastrom (RS)

Minute Taker

  • Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela (MA), Staff Attorney
  • Einar Bohlin, Sr. Policy Analyst (EB)
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Nate Davis, COO


  • Stephen Ryan, Esq.


  • Stacy Hughes, Heather Schiller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 19 July 2012, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Draft Policy ARIN-2012-2: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement

The Chair stated that HS and ARIN staff had been corresponding and this currently resides with ARIN staff. The text will be posted to Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and it is ready for the ARIN XXX Public Policy Meeting (PPM) in October to be held in Dallas, Texas.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2012-5: Removal of Renumbering Requirement for Small Multi-Homers

CA stated it was ready for ARIN XXX and that she would be presenting a slide deck. The Chair suggested posting another message to the PPML for any last comments. CA agreed to do so.

6. ARIN-Prop-175: Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Aligning 8.2 and 8.3 Transfer Policy’, selects it as a Draft Policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting”

The Chair called for discussion. CG stated the proposal text had been completely rewritten. He explained that the original text deleted section 8.2. The intent of the rewritten text was to add the protections of section 8.3 into section 8.2. He believed it made sense to do this for transfers, and stated it has been completed. He stated additions were made such as minimum size for transfers; the requirement for the original holder’s addresses to have proof of the resource registration; and, that the new holder signs a Registration Services Agreement (RSA).

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

7. ARIN-Prop-177: Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Revising Section 4.4 C/I Reserved Pool Size’, selects it as a Draft Policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.”

The Chair called for discussion. BS stated that there had not been much activity since last call, and that feedback indicated that this was discussion worthy for ARIN XXX. OD stated he did not support the proposal, but acknowledged the community’s support, agreeing that it merited discussion. DF stated that he supported taking this proposal to ARN XXX. He noted that it needed minor text editing along the lines of the staff and legal review, and also agreed it should be moved forward for discussion at the PPM. SL stated he agreed with OD’s comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

8. ARIN-Prop-179: Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. BS stated for the record that he works for an ISP that may become a TPIA within next year. Due to this fact, he would be abstaining during the roll call vote on the motion.

KB stated that community feedback was in favor of discussion on this proposal, but that it was hard to understand with regard to the situation that caused the proposal to come to fruition. This is not only a proposal dealing with the free pool, it goes further to the issue of 8.3 transfers, and organizations will not be able to obtain space. It is a long-term issue affecting real ISPs in Canada at this point in time. The solution, with the addition of staff’s recommendations, is a solid, reasonable, and technically sound proposal.

CA stated that the text still needed work, but agreed with KB. DA stated he was very familiar with the situation and was in favor of putting it on the AC’s docket, but hesitant in moving it forward to draft policy status because the language was not ready for the proposal to get that far.

OD stated he supported the motion, and adopting it as a draft policy, as it was a real problem faced by cable ISPs. He stated it was unfortunate that Canada was the only one providing for this so far; and that he would like to see the U.S. and others put this in place. He believed the proposal should move forward as quickly as possible, as companies are currently significantly disadvantaged by the current policy, which was technically unfair.

The motion carried with 12 in favor and 1 abstention (BS) via roll call.

It was then moved by KB and seconded by RS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the text, ‘Reassignments for Third Party Internet Access (TPIA) over Cable’, selects it as a Draft Policy for adoption discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List, and at the upcoming ARIN Public Policy Meeting.”

The Chair called for discussion. KB explained that feedback has been in support of dealing with this problem. The proposal needed additional revisions and the author was happy to include them. The text rationale had specifics to the Canadian industry and if they were to be removed, it may remove the reason for why this problem was happening. The proposal was generic, but it did apply to the region. He stated he desired to change ‘TPIA’ to a more generic term.

CG stated that folks from Canada attended ARIN PPMs two years ago with this problem, and that this proposal was the conclusion. If one needed a pure example of the policy process at work at ARIN – this proposal was it. He believed that not adopting this proposal as a draft policy for discussion at the ARIN PPM in October would be doing a large disservice to this portion of the community, and to the community as a whole.

President reminded the AC to be aware of the Policy Development Process (PDP) timelines. The Chair stated that the staff and legal review were conducted at the same time as the staff clarity and understanding report, in order to be able to move this proposal forward for draft policy adoption at this AC meeting. It had followed the PDP, and he thanked ARIN staff for their expediency.

OD addressed KB’s comments and stated that he did not believe that the Canadian reference should be removed from the proposal’s rationale. He cautioned to ensure that the policy was not Canada-specific in the policy’s text. He suggested the rationale be edited to add ‘facilitate deployments wherever they occur’, and pointed out that Canada was the first to have this happen. He believed that ‘TPIA’ was a fine generic term, as long as it is made clear that it is not about rulings, but about concept.

DA stated the problem was definitely not region-specific, and the policy should not be limited to such. The problem has existed for 10 years, and there are currently TPIA providers provisioned in the U.S., and have been for a long time. He believed the proposal was well intentioned, but that there was no barrier to request other allocations in a never-ending cycle. He stated the current wording needed revising to ensure the avoidance of abuse. He was not opposed to discussing at the PPM, but did not believe the proposal was ready for adopting as a draft policy. He believed to move this proposal forward to an adoption discussion is an invalid argument, as it could be discussed at the PPM regardless.

The Chair pointed out that in doing so, the proposal would need to wait one more cycle before becoming policy.

KB thanked OD for his comment on not removing Canada specifics from the rationale and for his suggestions for additional language. He noted the AC had 35 days until the text is frozen from further revisions. The Chair clarified that the text needed to be posted 35 days prior to the PPM, and the freeze on revisions is 10 days prior to that. He pointed out that there was still time to work on it, but the shepherds must be committed to get it done in time.

KB stated that this was currently an issue for ISPs in Canada, and he had a strong desire to clean up the text in time for the PPM. He agreed that protections could be added into the text regarding abuse.

CA wanted assurance that if this was not adopted as a draft policy, that the discussion at the PPM would not be a side discussion but a real session. The President stated that room would be made on the agenda for a presentation to be made during the main meeting.

BD wanted to hear dissenting views on why it should not be adopted as a draft policy.

MH stated he took DA’s comments to heart, and while there was not much commentary in either direction on the PPML, he believed there was not a technical problem in the policy but that other aspects were unclear in relation to transfers and other issues. He did not believe it was near to being ready to adopt as a draft policy and that doing so would be wrong at this point in time. He acknowledged the urgency and believed a special session during the PPM was a better idea. This would provide the author feedback for incorporation into the proposal.

KB stated that the most important feedback was that the Canadian ISPs needed to know one way or the other. He considered April 2013 (the next ARIN PPM) too far of a timeframe to wait, and pointed out that the ISPs would be unable to be involved in the regulatory framework that currently exists. The issue was time sensitive for the Canadians.

BS agreed stating that the proposal needed to be discussed fully in Dallas. He stated that there were many willing to spend considerable time to make this ready for the PPM in October so it can gain consensus.

The Chair addressed KB and CA asking that with regard to the staff assessment, legal guidance, and feedback from the PPML, was it enough information for them to work on the proposal to get it ready. KB stated yes and that BS would be happy to incorporate staff comments into the policy. The goal was to incorporate staff’s changes quickly, and post the text to the PPML and work with the community’s feedback.

SL stated that the key point was that the proposal was well thought out in concept and that good feedback from the PPML and staff is obtained. There is commitment to get the proposal ready for the Dallas PPM. Our job as the AC is to facilitate this process, and not stand in the way. Discussing this in Dallas will allow it to move forward if there is consensus.

RS pointed out that a facet of the proposal is a bootstrapping space problem, which was addressed by 2007-9. He stated he was in favor of adopting for draft policy.

The motion carried with 10 in favor (CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, CG, SL, CM, RS, JS), 2 against (DA, MH), and 1 abstention (BS) via roll call.

9. ARIN-Prop-180: ISP Private Reassignment

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘ISP Private Reassignment’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. MH stated that this is a privacy-based proposal, but it was not close to being ready, based on feedback from the PPML. The author was addressing this, but has not had enough time. The challenge is that law enforcement does not provide feedback on the PPML, but by proxy, and would be a disservice not to accept it onto the AC’s docket to continue working on it.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

It was noted that BD dropped off the call at 4:50 pm. EDT due to connectivity issues.

MH stated that in discussion of the previous policy – this proposal was not ready for adopting to draft policy, however he requested a session be added to the agenda for discussion at the PPM in Dallas. He believed this would encourage people to comment and provide an opportunity for feedback to the author.

The President stated that clearly a proposal should be able to be discussed with the community at an ARIN PPM, regardless of being ready for adoption. He stated he would ensure a scheduled session for discussion but cautioned it not be able to be moved for adoption after the meeting as it needed to first go through another PPM in form ready for adoption discussion. MH agreed.

BD rejoined the call at 4:56 PM EDT.

10. Improve Communications Group (IC) Report

IC members: KB, BD, OD, CG. KB stated that he had sent email to the AC on the avenues in which to tackle communication issues but this resulted in little feedback. He stated that since the AC meeting in January, cordiality on the AC’s mailing list has improved greatly. He was unsure if communications on the PPML could be changed and asked if the group wanted to make a presentation regarding the issue in Dallas.

The Chair believed it could be discussed in Dallas, and that the members of the IC make the presentation. The President agreed and requested the IC send staff a notification regarding the presentation. The IC agreed. Counsel suggested addressing the AUP as well. The Chair agreed and stated a 15-minute session would be sufficient.

11. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business. DF stated that in the past there were things to discuss in the AC workshop session during ARIN PPMs. He asked that this be done in a timely manner. He noted an item he had authored regarding regional use and different ways to think about that problem. He stated he would post a message to the AC’s list, and asked the AC to try to discuss it as much as possible ahead of time on their list.

The Chair stated that there would be lunch table topics at the ARIN PPM, and that he would also check the agenda for items.

12. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:01 p.m. EDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by BS. 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.