Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 19 September 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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.


Advisory Council Attendees:

  • John Sweeting, Chair (JSw)
  • Dan Alexander, Vice Chair (DA)
  • Kevin Blumberg (KB)
  • Bill Darte (BD)
  • Owen DeLong (OD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • Chris Grundemann (CG)
  • Stacy Hughes (SH)
  • Scott Leibrand (SL)
  • Milton Mueller (MM)
  • Bill Sandiford (BS)
  • Heather Schiller (HS)
  • John Springer (JSp)

Minute Taker:

  • Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel

  • Einar Bohlin (EB), Sr. Policy Analyst

  • John Curran, President & CEO

  • Nate Davis, COO

  • Leslie Nobile, (LN) Dir., Registration Services

ARIN General Counsel:

  • Steve Ryan, Esq.


  • Cathy Aronson

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda and called for any comments. There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 15 August 2013, as written.”

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

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2013-4: RIR Principles’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for any comments. CG stated that the initial version and draft policy had much discussion. A third version was sent approximately two months ago with no feedback. He noted that the text had been improved and did not change operational practice. He commented that one person provided feedback that he opposed the draft, but his message stated that this current version was much more agreeable; and, he did agree with the first three points. CG noted that this person was a staunch opponent of the policy. CG believed this text was in good form.

MM stated he was not in favor of the motion, nor did he believe the text was ready. In the beginning, the question was why were we doing this – what did it add or contribute to the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM)? He did not believe these questions were answered. It was pointed out that items in the text are already in the NRPM in one form or another. He noted these questions as to the articulation regarding the principles reducing our ability to move forward, and that they were never really answered. He agreed with CG that the policy had been improved, but argued that one person, who now does not oppose it, was not a strong reason to recommend the policy.

DF agreed with MM and stated that the comment sections could be strengthened. He believed more thought should be given to ‘stewardship’ before moving forward. He noted the importance of clarity for the NRPM, stating it should be done right. He stated that he did not support the motion.

OD supported the motion and agreed on further refinement. He believed this text was closer to what was needed, and it was worth moving forward at this meeting, as the content was part of RFC 2050. He noted that this could be moved forward and amended in the future.

DA asked CG if there were any conversations with regard to the redundant sections or overlapping terms that the staff review had pointed out. CG stated that it was discussed with the author. He explained that they did not want to stratify into specific things for IPv4, IPv6 or ASNs. It was to be universal and to be a new section. Additionally, there was a possibility that that those specific sections needed to be revised and he saw it as a distinct separate effort. The main job was to fulfill the author’s intent, if it made sense to the community.

DA stated that the AC did not have much time to completely digest the staff and legal review. Did CG see the proposal at risk? Did CG believe that this really needed to go forward at this time, or was there a downside to it going through another cycle and then updating it?

CG responded that there were definitely no surprises in the staff and legal review –the matters had been discussed previously. He believe that unless someone could point out obvious harm by moving the text forward at this time, he did not want perfection to get in the way of it being good enough.

MM asked CG if he saw any potential harm by locking into place these principles? By doing so, it may lock in policies that may need to be changed in the future. Why not create a policy that was flexible? He noted that people wanted aggregation and not routability. Why was routability left in the policy, given the confusion as to whether ARIN guarantees routabilty?

CG responded that aggregation was not the principle. This policy applied to all Internet numbers. The stewardship principle needed to be balanced against all of it. Aggregatability was not an underlying principle

MM stated that ARIN did not guarantee routing. To clarify potential confusion, would you support also that ARIN would not ever be in a position to deny routability? CG stated that his opinion was that it did not need to be stated. The caveat was that routabilty was necessary, but in allocating or assigning numbers, ARIN could not guarantee that they would be routed by an operator.

DF stated that he took issue with the thought that something was missing in RFC 7020, which was now a version of RFC 2050. The principles in RFC 2050 are more or less in 7020, restated in a different way. There was no magic in 2050. He did not see urgency for this policy. He believed this matter was very important, and that it should be done right. He believed this process was hurried, and he was opposed to it. He stated that what was needed was in the new RFC 7020.

An AC member stated to CG that they heard from people that minor tweaks were needed to gain more support. If the AC held the text back for a month, could it be done, or would it be better to move forward as it stood? CG stated that his assessment was that a very small minority opposed this policy and would never support it. The larger group supported it, and some that were opposed to it now supported it. If there were bigger changes needed, he would not be moving to make it a recommended draft policy (RDP).

HS pointed out that the intent was to discuss this as an RDP during at ARIN 32. The deadline for freezing the text was 10 September, which means that the text could not be revised. Staff had recommended changes. She asked CG if he reviewed them and was choosing not to change the text? She noted that a couple of the recommended changes were significant. Where did this stand in the process?

CG noted that the staff review might have been interpreted differently between them. He noted one change to remove the examples from the stewardship section, and called out several potential overlapping items. But he did not see a lot of major changes needed when reviewing the report.

HS stated that what was of most concern to her was that the staff review stated that this policy text should be reviewed to avoid duplication with RFC 7020 and the Policy Development Process (PDP). CG explained that the text was written language taken from the PDP itself, in some cases, and from RFC 7020 at the time. It changed based on community input. HS asked if CG was provided clarification? CG stated he noted that staff pointed out items that needed attention.

EB stated that LN and he agreed with CG, and that it could be worked on now, or in the future. The Chair clarified it could be worked on now, or after ARIN 32 before last call.

HS stated there should be no overlaps between the PDP, RDPs and the NRPM. LN stated that ARIN staff saw no conflict with this text and NRPM, just some redundancies. HS asked if the redundancy was bad? LN clarified that it was not conflicting principles, just redundant language.

The President stated, for clarity, that the staff and legal review provided to the AC was what ARIN believed to be ‘helpful comments’. For example, if there were questions with the policy text that challenged implementation, or a matter of implementation ARIN staff wanted the AC to see, staff would bring it up in the review. Unless the review clearly states the policy cannot be implemented, it is simply advice and the AC is free to proceed, but remembering that the AC needs to produce clear, easy to understand policy.

HS stated that she agreed with the principles of the text, but was trying to understand if the text itself was right. It seemed to her that staff was trying to reduce redundancy.

JSp stated that he supported the text, and believed that there would be ample opportunity for commentary.

RS was in favor of moving it forward, recognizing that it was not perfect. He supported continuing work as appropriate.

KB stated that when he was doing background research on 2013-5, he had read the PDP. He believed that community support was the issue that the AC had not focused upon. According to the PDP, the AC needed support from a Public Policy Consultation (PPC) and that had not yet occurred. He was concerned that the AC needed strong support, and he did not believe they had it. He expressed that a huge improvement to a ‘blasé’ attitude was not strong support. He did not support the motion, but that he would like to be able to do so. He acknowledged that the Shepherds had done a phenomenal job in order for the community to decide if it was ready; however, he believed that it was not ready to become an RDP.

KB asked CG if he believed there was strong support required from the PDP to move the policy forward, based on feedback from the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML)? CG replied that he did believe so. He noted the text had been changed two times since the initial crafting, and support had been 50-50. The third version changed support to a majority. He stated he believed it should be moved forward as an RDP because ARIN will be asking the community for any opposition to be brought forth at ARIN 32.

The Chair advised the AC that they needed to focus on what was in the PDP, and that their vote would be based on this interpretation.

BD believed that the material issues brought up by staff and legal review were as stated earlier by CG and EB. It prompted the AC to move it forward because he believed it was inappropriate to have redundant principles stated in various areas with in the NRPM. These principles have stood the test of time since the inception of ARIN, and within RFC 2050. This policy text stated it in an appropriate place, and it could be revised in the future. He supported the motion. SH agreed.

The motion carried 10 in favor (KB, BD, OD, CG, SH, SL, BS, RS, HS, JSp), and 4 against (DA, DF, MM, JSw) via roll call vote.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-5: LIR/ISP and End-user Definitions

KB stated he did not believe a motion needed to be made. He noted that the staff report came out very recently, and believed this policy should remain in its present form. It did not help staff, and they would like that to be remedied. PPML feedback had not been positive, and there was not a good grasp of the text as written. He suggested it be taken to ARIN 32 as a draft policy, to get as much input as possible, and see if it could be revised or, if not, abandoned. He did not believe it was ready for RDP status.

The Chair called for further comments. SH agreed with KB, stating that it needed further work or needed to be abandoned - which she was in favor of, but she stated she would not make a motion to that effect at this time.

SL was in favor of a motion to abandon. He queried if it were worthwhile to leave it as it stood. KB stated that he would be in agreement of a motion to abandon, as he believed the text would not come to fruition. He stated he would try to come up with a proposal, but there was a divide where staff wants specifics and the community does not want to provide them.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2013-5: LIR/ISP and End-user Definitions’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for any comments. OD supported the motion, as he believed it was currently as close as they would get, and if staff stated that it did not help them at this point, more time on it would not improve it.

The President stated that it was true that the proposed text did not help staff in eliminating the present ambiguity; however, staff was was not stating that it must have a policy in this area. Rather, it was noting that situations arise with regard to organizations that are ambiguous as to whether they should be defined as end-user or ISP, and further with regards to organizations crossing from one to the other. ARIN brought the matter to attention of the community, so they could develop policy only if they wanted to change the present situation.

JSp stated he was not in favor of the motion to abandon. He recognized that it would leave a working status quo, but believed that staff was saying it was a problem and would appreciate help - as they preferred things worked more smoothly.

The President clarified that it was not that staff said ‘we have a problem’, but said that the current process does not work well. It was working - but sub-optimally. If the community could provide clarity, it would be preferred; however, it might not be achievable. There was currently a vague issue with interpreting the NRPM, and the requirement was only that the community realized the situation.

The motion to abandon carried with 11 in favor (DA, KB, OD, DF, CG, SH, SL, BS, RS, HS, JSw), and 3 against (BD, MM, JSp) via roll call vote.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-Region Requestors

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2013-6: Allocation of IPv4 and IPv6 Address Space to Out-of-Region Requestors’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for any comments. BD stated that he believed it was a great improvement with clear language. Some people may disagree on some of the wording, but he found that it was supported on the PPML, and was much better than text that was currently in existence. He believed that the text in this policy was what the community and staff wanted.

DF stated that he supported policy, but did not believe that the development was completed, and did not support the motion to move it forward. The primary issue was consensus on either a plurality standard or if we should do a percentage standard. He believed ARIN could receive beneficial community feedback at ARIN 32, and move it forward at next PPC or Public Policy Meeting (PPM).

SL was not in favor of the motion. He agreed with DF that the policy was not complete and he thought it a bad idea in principle. He did not believe the level of community support had been achieved.

MM stated that he was ready to support the policy, but staff comments raised doubts about whether there should be any standard at all. He opposed it because he believed if it was moved forward it would not pass; and, that it could be revised in a way that it could pass. He did not believe it had enough support and cautioned the AC not to move it forward prematurely.

SH stated that she did not support the motion and did not believe it should be worked on further. She believed it would be overtaken by events.

KB stated that he too did not support the motion and believed it still needed work. He stated that presenting it at a PPC would provide clarity one way or another, but at this time it did not have the support needed to move forward.

The motion to move to recommended draft policy failed with 11 against (DA, KB, DF, SH, SL, MM, BS, RS, HS, JSp, JSw), and 3 in favor (BD, OD, CG), via roll call vote.

The text will remain as a draft policy.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2013-7: Merge IPv4 ISP and End-User Requirements

SL stated he would make revisions and that discussion needed to take place. No action required at this time.

DF asked when the publication print date deadline was for only the draft policies. EB stated they would be sent to the printer next week. DF stated he would provide changes to EB shortly, as did SL.

8. Improve Communications Group (IC) Report

In the interest of time, the Chair asked CG, as the group lead, if this item could be discussed at the next AC meeting in October. CG agreed.

9. ARIN 32 Table Topics

The Chair stated that he discussed the list of items with EB that there were five topics, one sent by MM and four by BD. He reviewed the topics with the AC. He stated the DPs that are not yet RDPs would also be discussed. He requested that the AC consider a consolidation of the list of items, and/or alternative items.

The President requested that a table topic on the structure of ARIN meetings be added. He posed: Should there be one meeting per year or two? Should they be in- line with NANOG meetings or not? He thought it beneficial to get input from the community via a table topic. The Chair agreed.

EB reminded the AC that statements were needed on actions taken at this meeting by close of business on 23 September 2013.

10. Any Other Business

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

11. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:20 p.m. EDT. BD moved to adjourn, seconded by SH. The motion carried 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.