Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 24 April 2013 [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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.

Bridgetown, Barbados

Advisory Council Attendees:

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

Minute Taker

  • Einar Bohlin

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela, Assoc. General Counsel (MA)

  • John Curran, President & CEO

  • Nate Davis, COO (ND)

  • Leslie Nobile, Director of Registration Services (LN)

ARIN General Counsel

  • Steve Ryan, Esq.


  • Heather Schiller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:46 a.m. AST. The presence of quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting, noting the President would be delayed.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 21 March 2013, 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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ARIN-2012-2 to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. CA spoke in favor of the motion, noting that during the Public Policy Meeting (PPM) there were many in favor and no one against it.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-1: Section 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers of ASNs

SL spoke in favor of keeping this recommended Draft Policy (DP) on the AC’s docket to continue development. The Chair reviewed the options for this item: it could go to last call; it could be abandoned; or, it would revert to Draft Policy after 60 days.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ARIN-2013-1.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD noted that community members spoke against this recommended DP at the meeting. CG believed that since there was an intra-region transfer policy for ASNs, there was no reason not to have an inter-RIR policy for ASNs. KB pointed out that no other RIR had an inter-RIR policy for ASN transfers.

CG stepped out of the meeting at this time (10:59 a.m.).

JS noted the AC’s current light proposal load, and stated he would prefer to keep it on the their docket. RS noted it was not urgent, unlike the matter of IPv4 transfers. KB stated that the RIPE region prefers 4-byte ASNs; no one seems to want ARIN’s ASNs, so where was the technical issue? SH agreed with RS and KB. BD stated he was not speaking for or against it, but believed that leadership was not a bad thing and that someone had to take the first step.

DF believed that there was no urgency to advancing it at this time. The issue could be brought up again when it was raised at another RIR.. MM asked if the folks that were against it might ever change their mind? CA noted that there was no scarcity of ASNs, and that the ARIN region appeared to be the only region that had a problem with 4-byte ASNs. The Chair noted that a multi-national had stated that they wanted to transfer their own ASNs. OD stated that the community wanted the AC to work on other things. He believed that leaving this on the docket was disingenuous; and, that the AC should abandon it and let the petition process be invoked, if desired.

DF noted a long-term shortage of 2-byte ASNs that ARIN was issuing, and noted that ARIN had a few years. He suggested that AC members query other RIR communities to find out if this policy was wanted and/or needed.

KB believed that this was a global issue perhaps requiring global policy, or at least a multi-RIR policy. The Chair suggested that the ASO AC could query their respective regions for interest in this topic, and provide valuable feedback. JS reviewed the poll, which was eight in favor of the AC working on this, and 12 against. He noted that some had not wanted the AC to work on this, but believed it not enough for abandonment. BD spoke in favor of keeping this on the AC’s docket and gathering more information.

SL believed that while some had said that this did not appear necessary, no one had stated that this was a bad idea. He noted it was an operational issue and would like it to be presented at the next Public Policy Consultation (PPC) during the next NANOG Meeting. He pointed out that at the last PPC there was some support. DF was in support of this suggestion. KB stated that he looked forward to feedback from the ASO AC members.

The motion to abandon failed with eight against (KB, BD, DF, SL, MM, BS, JSpringer, JSweeting), and five in favor (DA, CA, OD, SH, RS) via roll call.

ARIN-2013-1 will remain on the AC’s docket.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-2: 3GPP Network IP Resource Policy

SL stated that the community had expressed interest in finding out if this was a widespread problem. He believed it needed to be posted to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) for further feed back. BD supported the lack of a motion. KB pointed out that no one had stated that this was a technical problem. OD believed that the problem seemed to be unique to a single company - versus from other 3GPP companies.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ARIN-2013-2.”

The Chair called for discussion. CA believed that this was likely to be overtaken by events, but could possibly be a ‘run-out’ policy.

The President joined the meeting at this time (11:32 a.m. AST)

JS cautioned the AC with regard to abandoning DPs, as their workload was currently light. He supported presentation it at the PPC.

SL relayed a remote participant’s opinion that this had been a problem for many, for a long time - why change policy now for a little subset of the community? However, this would be part of the post run-out problem with regard to transfers. The AC needed to work on this with a wider audience for the entire industry, if possible.

BD supported abandoning it, noting a weak but general call for work on this as a wider problem. RS pointed out that there were some problems created by technology such as: the cable problem and the power of two; the problems of architecture; and, operational problems. He believed the AC should take a dim view of trying to fix architectural problems, in favor of the motion.

MM believed that with all of the uncertainty, the AC should not yet abandon this, as there was no policy text. DF stated that he preferred to work on it, noting that it needed more detailed information and that there were items in which followed up was needed. He acknowledged that it might be abandoned later on.

DA was against the motion and concerned about being in judgment of a single architecture. He believed it needed to be looked at on a higher level, and wondered if it should be accommodated in general. KB believed that conservation would be thrown out, and that it was not good stewardship.

JS asked if it were better to abandon now, and adopt something new, or to keep this for further development? The Chair stated that there was a problem statement that might need to be re-scoped. SH believed that there were too few organizations making this request. CA provided background about cable policy, stating that the routers did not understand CIDR, etc. There was explanation and discussion and a good cable policy had resulted.

The Chair stated that this was presented at last NANOG Meeting, and there were one or two in support. SL noted that the author originally intended to change the Residential policy, which the AC abandoned. He believed if this too were to be abandoned, the AC would be going in circles. He believed more input was needed, and that it should be presented at the PPC during the next NANOG Meeting. DF agreed. BD believed it should be abandoned; and, if there were people who support it, they would then support a petition.

The motion to abandon failed with eight against (DA, CA, DF, SL, MM, BS, JSpringer, JSweeting) and five in favor (KB, BD, OD, SH, RS) via roll call.

2013-2 will remain on the AC’s docket.

DF thanked OD for the motion made, stating that it had lead to good discussion, and that it showed that the process was working.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-3: Tiny IPv6 Allocations for ISPs

DF requested that this remain on the AC’s docket pending feedback from the Fee Structure Review Committee (FSRC). The President stated that the results of the FSRC would be presented at the PPM in October. DF stated that he had gotten a sense from the room that other solutions should be explored; however, this policy might be the solution.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ARIN-2013-3.”

CA stated that there was nothing about IPv6 that was tiny, and that policy should not be set because of the fee structure. KB believed a /40 was a bad idea for ISPs. The President noted that the minimum was currently a /36, with a lower fee than previously charged. He explained that members had stated that they wanted to pay less, which was an issue for the Board. The AC needed to make good technical IPv6 policy, and it should be abandoned only if it was technically unsound, and explain why. DF pointed out that the author stated he would prefer something other than his own proposal, but felt obligated to submit it due to the fee schedule.

CG returned to the meeting at this time (12:03 p.m. AST).

OD agreed with CA. He believed it the policy was technically unsound, as pointed out by the author himself, and he reviewed the PPM poll with the Council. CG stated that a /40 is not technically sound, and the only reason this proposal existed was to change fees.

The motion to abandon carried with twelve in favor (DA, CA, KB, BD, OD, DF, CG, SH, SL, MM, BS, RS, JSpringer, JSweeting) and two abstentions (DF, RS). RS indicated that he had worked with the author and this proposal facilitated discussion. RS would like to see discussion continue but there is not enough support to keep this proposal on the docket.

The Chair called for a recess in order for the AC to prepare for a working lunch at this time (12:09 p.m. AST). The Chair resumed the meeting at 12:24 p.m. AST.

8. Improve Communications Group (IC) Report

(IC Members: CG, BD, JS). CG provided an update to the Council. He stated that the first part of improving communications would focus on communications within the AC, and then communications between the AC and the ARIN community. The second part would focus on communications among the community.

The IC created a draft document with three parts: 1) high level expectations and consequences; 2) Primary Shepherd’s responsibilities; and 3) Secondary Shepherd’s responsibilities/best practices. Mentoring and other activities that AC members do could be added later.

The Chair noted that most of the work would be done on the AC’s mailing list. KB stated that he was thankful for the work done to date, and suggested that the document should be as positive as possible. The President agreed, suggesting striking the text regarding ‘behavior and decorum’ from the document, but perhaps creating it in a separate document. He cautioned that if the AC finds itself discussing process instead of policy work, the Board might have to intervene. CG stated he would consider sending that portion of the document to the Board for review. BD pointed out that there were relevant procedures already in the ARIN Bylaws.

9. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

Public Policy Consultations (PPC).

The President stated that he would seek the Board’s approval to clarify that Recommended Draft Policies could be presented at PPCs, and then afterwards be forwarded to ’last call’. The Board had asked that ARIN be careful with PPCs as they come up to speed, to ensure it was a valid forum. He noted that the Board would discuss this issue. The Chair clarified that a text could go to last call as a result of being a Recommended Draft Policy at ARIN 31; and then be presented again as a Recommended Draft Policy at the upcoming PPC at NANOG in June.


CG suggested that this proposal was perhaps an editorial change. EB noted that there was an editorial process described in the PDP. CA wanted to ensure that the community understood that this did not change practices at ARIN. It was the sense of the AC that this was an editorial change.

Policy Experience and Implementation Report.

KB requested a sneak peak before meetings, so that policies could be considered and worked on at the PPM/PPCs. He suggested more time for policy discussion and policy workshops at NANOGs.

Design Teams.

The President discussed the accepted concept of design teams (people who get together to work on documents). He stated that the AC’s designated proposal ‘shepherds’ should feel free to form such teams. The important thing was to bring the result out for discussion.

DF suggested there should be a ‘Birds of a Feather’ (BOF) session at the NANOG Meeting for post run-out policy discussions. MM cautioned about bringing forth work characterized as ‘AC output’.

CG agreed that design teams have worked well, and that he could assist with NANOG BOFs. The Chair stated that the result of the BOF should go to the PPML. SH suggested also putting relevant posts on the NANOG mailing list. LN noted that the slides might not be clear by themselves, and would need accompanying documentation.

KB expressed that he would have liked to have known about “reorganizations” earlier, so that he could have considered crafting a proposal. He suggested information be provided on an AC teleconference prior to the meeting. The President stated he would review this suggestion, and report back with possibilities. CA suggested that issues could be raised regularly on AC calls. The President stated that matters could be brought forth between meetings. There were three other items in the policy report, plus items in the last two reports, that might still need work.

10. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 1:11 p.m. AST. CG moved to adjourn, seconded by SH. 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.