Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 23 January 2015 [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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.

Washington, DC

Advisory Council Attendees:

  • Dan Alexander, Chair (DA)
  • Kevin Blumberg, Vice Chair (KB)
  • Cathy Aronson (CA)
  • Owen DeLong (OD)
  • Andrew Dul (AD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • David Huberman (DH)
  • Scott Leibrand (SL)
  • Tina Morris (TM)
  • Milton Mueller (MM)
  • Leif Sawyer (LS)
  • Heather Schiller (HS)
  • Robert Seastrom (RS)
  • John Springer (JS)
  • Chris Tacit (CT)

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) Director, Registration Services

Board Observers

  • Paul Andersen, Vice Chair/Treasurer
  • Bill Sandiford, Trustee

ARIN General Counsel

  • Stephen Ryan, Esq.

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 11:11 a.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

2. Agenda Review

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

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 18 December 2014, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections with one abstention (KB).

KB stated he abstained because he was not present for the December AC meeting.

MM stated that this recommended draft policy (RDP) would be presented at ARIN’s Public Policy Consultation (PPC) during the NANOG 63 meeting.

The President stated that there was an issue related to the Internet Coordination Policy 2 (ICP-2) that was not necessarily apparent, but he needed to raise it as an item for consideration, which came about from the staff and legal review: Over the last 5 years there have been occasions where one would qualify for resources according to ARIN policy, but the party was requesting assignment of initial resources for use entirely outside of the ARIN region.

In such instances ARIN would redirect the organization to request resources from another RIR because ICP-2 indicates RIRs have non-overlapping service regions. ICP-2 is now 15 years old. It may or may not be the best model today, but there are established service regions for the RIRs. Making a policy that says that ARIN will serve networks that we know are outside the ARIN region may be seen by some as changing a baseline practice of the registry system. Speculatively, one could also argue that it provides a basis for any RIR to serve organizations anywhere on the globe because “ARIN is doing it.” That may be good or bad – there is no way to know, and it’s not strictly correct because the draft policy (DP) requires that the requester already be an ARIN customer with a nexus of operations in this region. The President stated he was not claiming draft policy adoption would cause ARIN direct harm, but it may lead to unforeseen consequences.

DF did not believe the intended purpose was to change the customer base, or who was entitled to receive resources from ARIN. He noted it was not clearly stated that once allocated, an organization could use the resources inside or outside of the ARIN. The President reiterated that past practice has been to turn down a request if it is entirely for use outside the ARIN region. As far as we are aware, every RIR has turned down similar requests for resources outside of region to avoid the potential for confusion of conflicting policy and administration that comes with overlapping service regions.

KB stated that in the last three years it has been rare that the legal review has raised a concern or issue with a policy being reviewed. We cannot ignore this matter. We are going to the PPC next week in San Antonio, and the community should hear these issues. It will be a disservice to the community if we do not present this there, and we instead moved it forward to the Board. We need to ask the community what changes should be made. KB was concerned with the open nature of the policy as it currently was written, and the unknown ramifications. He wanted to seek community input and feedback.

MM stated that the DP had significant legal concerns previously, with the nexus and jurisdiction revisions and that, with changes, those problems have been resolved. He believed the current concern was an issue with the ICP-2, and the ICP-2 was not a legal requirement, nor was it a global policy. It was a statement of policy from the ICANN Board with regard to creating a new RIR for developing world regions, and what the process is for such. He stated the ICP-2 text does not indicate any real need for non-overlapping service regions. The registry system has been regionalized for facilitating on the ground policy processes, not to restrict resources to a specific region. There has been a massive movement for 10 years to fragment and align with state jurisdictions. The Internet can be forced into state jurisdiction where intergovernmental departments rule it. It is a non-inherent and costly way to apply law to the Internet. The nexus requirement makes it clear it is subject to U.S. jurisdiction, can be tracked and subject to law enforcement. If Canada gets addresses from ARIN, it is subject to U.S. law.

Counsel explained that there are over 20 sovereign governments in the ARIN region and each of their laws has to be taken into account on occasion. ARIN has significant activity in Canada, for example, it has developed a working knowledge of Canadian law and hired law firms. If an organization is in the ARIN region, every allocation has to be consistent with U.S. law since it issues the resources in Chantilly. But allocations to a Canadian organization have to also be consistent with Canadian law. An important change in Canadian law has to be considered by ARIN to keep a consistent set of practices in the same service region. Fundamentally, ICP-2 protects the RIRs from scenarios such as this. It allows us to develop expertise on the law and regulation of service area governments. Counsel is concerned that fraud will significantly increase if there is no requirement for use of any of the resources in the ARIN region. Lacking a nexus to the region, we would be ‘RIR to the world’.

MM stated that he believed that RIPE has already tried this with their no needs based /22 - they don’t ask any questions. LN clarified that RIPE does require an organization to use in-region to get space allocated. You can be a member from anywhere but one must use the resources in region. Regardless, MM stated that he did not believe that it undermined the merit of this case, if one is coming to ARIN because ARIN has the resources (IPv4) and they do not.

The Chair acknowledged the conversation, but as a point of order, in the interest of time and flow of the agenda and due to Counsel’s availability, he requested that Counsel provide the AC with the presentation he needed to provide.

It was moved by OD that the AC meeting be recessed. This was seconded by CA. The motioned carried with no objections.

The Chair recessed the AC business meeting at 11:37 a.m. EST. The Chair resumed the meeting at 1:10 p.m. EST.

The Chair asked MM if he believed that the concerns and objections, and the pros and cons were adequately quantified to enable presenting this RDP at the upcoming PPC. MM stated that since passing (unanimously) as an RDP, the controversy has arisen. It had been narrowed to one final issue: incentivizing a large number of applications from people around the world. He believed that this was the original problem the AC was trying to address. We had no policy stating whether it was not allowed or it was allowed; and, we tried to clarify that with this policy by restricted mechanisms - but that was not supported. So, we liberalized it in a specific way. When we present this at the PPC, we need to carefully focus on the issue as to what the immediate effects may be of what we have now drafted. The IPv4 free pool will deplete in May. All of these problems are associated with depletion and scarcity. I do not want to re-open the debate from the beginning. It has been narrowed down.

TM stated that it would be important to get the slides out and reviewed ASAP, to make sure that all concerns were addressed. The Chair stated the AC’s workshop would be following this business meeting where the AC could do just that.

DF stated that he did not believe that IPv4 depletion would make the issues disappear. It only changes them - it does not eliminate them.

JS requested paying attention to the speakers and the discussion being cut off. The Chair stated he would do so.

The President stated that the AC needed to have a discussion regarding a couple of refinements raised in staff and legal review, as he believed that the AC had not finished that discussion. There were open issues that needed to be addressed.

The Chair stated that the issues would be noted without debating them so that the AC could quantify them and have a list they could discuss. The President stated he was happy to do this now or later in the day.

The Chair suggested moving forward in the agenda, and it was the sense of the AC to do so, and come back to this item for discussion at the end.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove 7.1 (Maintaining IN-ADDRS)

RS stated this draft policy (DP) had a new title “Remove Operational Reverse DNS Text”. He noted that discussion at the October ARIN Public Policy Meeting (PPM) had been about getting ‘rat-holed’ with regard to IPv4 and IPv6 policy being congruent. Section 6.5.6 had similar text, but was not the same as Section 7.1 in Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). In order to get consensus from the community, the AC added it, and removed the operational reverse DNS text. The text for the upcoming PPC regards removing Sections 7.1 and 6.5.6, and an additional paragraph explaining why.

Informational Item: The ARIN Board, at their meeting on 12 January 2015, adopted this Recommended Draft Policy.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14: Removing Needs Test from Small IPv4 Transfers

The Chair stated that earlier this week, a request for a staff and legal review was submitted, and it was later realized that it had been done in September of last year. He noted that the text has not changed. He recalled the request for the review.

JS thanked AD for the additional text on this DP that he had crafted. JS noted that it was clear that the problem statement needed revising. He stated it would be ready for ARIN 35 in San Francisco this April. He also noted that the shepherds of this DP would not be in attendance at the upcoming PPC in San Antonio. The Chair asked if the DP would require feedback from the community. DF stated that slides were needed indicating that the AC was working on it and that they would present it in San Francisco. JS stated there would be discussion on the PPML prior to the PPC.

SL explained that there has been significant discussion on the aspects of the DP’s merits. What is considered to be “small”? Where should the line be? Should there be a sunset clause? And where? Should it be numerical or time-based? Those topics could be discussed at the PPC, and that it was worth asking the community.

JS stated that his hope was to eliminate the term ‘small’ from the discussion. The discussion had turned philosophical and he could not get a grasp on it. He was not sure it could be captured it in a way that was less controversial, but stated that the shepherds would try. With regard to a sunset clause, the DP shows signs of going down a similar philosophical route, but those discussions would take place. The problem statement was being revised for the AC’s review then it would be posted to the PPML. JS wondered if that would not be sufficient for our needs, rather than intercept it in time for someone to discuss it at the PPC. He noted that someone would need to volunteer to present it.

KB stated that if it were too radical to change the problem statement, it would be best to abandon the DP and re-draft it. He suggested asking the community for feedback on the problem statement to guide the AC. He believed the AC had gotten hung up on the text and it was a catch 22. He advised to forget the text for the time being.

AD noted a time limitation and stated that he was unsure if he could get a problem statement posted in time and if so, it was not enough time to have discussion take place on the PPML; and it was important to have discussion of it on the PPML. He stated that the shepherds would come up with a significant rewrite for review.

KB explained that he did not say that a new problem statement was needed. He suggested having questions for the community to allow the shepherds to have a new problem statement at some point.

The Chair asked if the shepherds can craft a set of questions that would help them with the rewrite and could solicit feedback on them, it could be done at the PPC. Alternatively the shepherds can give an update at the PPC, and rewrite it themselves.

AD asked the AC “Who wants questions they want answered, and can send to us by Tuesday?” There were no comments. DF suggested a status update be provided stating that shepherds were working on it and if there is feedback, to please post it to the PPML. SL stated he preferred feedback from community, not just having the AC do it.

OD disagreed about the need for a sunset clause stating that anything we do is utterly experimental in nature. This is the first stab at a policy that does not have needs basis. If we are conducting the experiment, then there is not a default to continue until there is no need for it.

KB suggested either change the problem statement, or craft a sunset clause that would not affect the problem statement. OD stated that it was the policy that ended up in the NRPM not the problem statement. The policy makes sunset clause reasonable, prudent, and necessary.

The President advised the AC that they decide which draft policies are presented at a PPC to the community for an update, a discussion, on a title slide, or not at all. It is a flexible process. If the AC is going to change the problem statement, it helps to have a clear policy. If the AC changes it, it would be good to discuss it with the community for their input on what is wrong with the present one, and what you might want to change. Gauge the conversation at the podium – you can decide how to use the input from the community at this phase, and can pinpoint what to discuss.

The President also noted that the problem statement for 2014-14 may not still be applicable because it references processing times, influx of requests, delay in needs assessment, and backlogs. He informed the AC that ARIN was presently is caught up with its request queue and is running on normal processing times.

It was the sense of the AC that the shepherds of this DP will decide what they want to do.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from Last-Allocation to Total-Aggregate

AD stated that this RDP was ready to go to the PPC. There were not many objections seen since the last textual change, and final feedback will be requested. The Chair asked if this would be adopted prior to ARIN 35 in April? AD believed it would be.

KB asked if the AC would get enough information and consensus from the PPC. He suggested that it should be presented at the PPM.

The President advised against sending any policy to the Board that comes out of a lightly attended PPC. SL stated that would only happen if it never goes to the PPM, does not receive support on mailing list, and then does not receive support at a PPC. However, this draft policy has been at a PPM and feedback has been received. DF and OD agreed.

HS cautioned the AC to slow down. She stated that if it is presented at a PPM and it has been discussed and there was no consensus, and then it was presented at a lightly attended PPC - then nothing has changed. The goal is to build consensus. From a process perspective, if it was contested at a PPM, it’s not a good plan to try to get it through a lightly attended PPC.

The Chair noted that these are concerns to think of as these situations are coming up with this RDP and with RDP 2014-19. OD agreed with HS. He stated that if it was controversial at the PPM but there were wording changes only, and we are just confirming them, then it is in line with what the community wanted, and they supported it. If it is presented at a lightly attended PPC that may be enough, but we do not need to delay it longer or to wait until depletion to implement it. Organizations have been negatively impacted for a long time.

DF agreed. He stated he believed that it could move forward, short of no one showing up at the PPC. CA stated this could be decided after the PPC. All agreed.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization

CA stated she would be presenting this RDP at the PPC. It has been presented at more than one PPM.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4

DF stated that this DP was a fairly simple policy. The textual changes were mostly editorial. He stated it could be presented as is and add the changes following the PPC and take to the PPM; or we can take it as is to the PPC and push it along the process if there is support. It matters to the free pool.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends “ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4” for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that the text has not changed in 30 days, therefore a motion is allowed. There was sufficient support for moving forward at this time. He stated that he had sent emails for support to move this forward at an accelerated pace. Two people commented on it with no clear support. There is now significantly more support (6 to 7 people).

The Chair stated that in looking at the staff and legal review, and the fact that 35 /24s have been allocated in the last few years and there are still 221 left – is there a point to this? We have to balance it against the fact that there would be operators who will be denied, who otherwise would have received allocated resources.

DF stated if there is opposition it should be brought up and that sounds like it. The Chair queried if the benefit for 6 people outweighed short-changing someone else? DF stated that it has gotten to the point where he can recommend moving it forward based on timing issues.

SL pointed that out the timing issue was that there will be a /13, /14, /15s for a number of cycles. This or next ARIN meeting would not make much difference. It is worth taking it to the community to work this out. DF stated he would include this in the presentation slides.

The Chair called for a recess at 2:00 p.m. EST. The Chair resumed the meeting at 2:07 p.m. EST.

JS stated that the wording is equivalent to a /15, a /16 is being added. As the Chair pointed out, there is considerable room remaining in the original /16 set aside. JS believed it to be a bookkeeping exercise to trigger action when there is a /16 left. The President stated that that was not the case. Once this policy is adopted, ARIN would move and reserve the initial block immediately, to follow the policy.

The Chair stated that if this DP is not adopted, there will be an equivalent of a /16 in the free pool – people will receive their allocations until it’s gone. If this DP is adopted, the /16 will be allocated, and there will be people denied allocations that much earlier. The Chair stated he was not trying to prevent the depletion, but if adopted, this DP would be disenfranchising a set of people who would have otherwise received allocations.

OD considered part of the reason was that there are thirty-five /24s – a lot got space from other pools. The rate of growth has increased in this region, and he believed setting it aside was a worthwhile tradeoff. He stated that he supported motion. He noted that if there is support at the PPC, he did not see the need to take it to the PPM.

HS also considered whether reservation was necessary as the minimum allocation has been lowered to a /24. If the reservation was removed, organizations could still get it from the free pool like anyone else. Was there enough of a technical need to reserve this for CI? Was this reservation technically necessary any longer?

JS spoke about filtering CI ranges. HS stated that that has been done because the minimum allocation window for CI was smaller than everything else. We’ve lowered the minimum to a /24. RS stated that the utilization for this is lower than for an ISP.

KB supported the policy stating that it involved the operator community, especially IXs. It was a 10-year window type of scenario: the critical infrastructure would be 10 years. A /10 for CI for bootstrapping IPv6 is transitional, and it is just as important to bootstrap IPv4 for IXs over the next 10 years. He had no qualms about it. When we look at this we look at protocols before depletion.

OD stated that an IX was worthy of set aside to bootstrap. The community would benefit tremendously from density, and increased and peering connections. It is a proven way to facilitate IXs. It would provide more value than other utilization we can offer. He believed the policy was worthy.

DF stated that he was the shepherd on this DP. Taking that hat off, he stated he would vote against the motion. He saw no need to accelerate the policy. But, as the community wanted it done, it was his job as a shepherd to do so.

KB asked how moving it forward was accelerating it, as it still had to go through last call. DF replied that normally DPs get presented at a meeting, and then presented as a RDP at a subsequent meeting. This DP has not been presented yet. The proposal came in just before the last policy meeting. The Chair clarified the draft was made in November following the PPM.

AD did not support the motion and believed that it should go to the PPC as a DP and see if support was received.

The motion to recommend 2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size Per Section 4.4 for adoption to Recommended Draft Policy failed with 9 against (DA, CA, AD, DF, TM, LS, HS, RS, CT), and 6 in favor (KB, OD, DH, SL, MM, JS) via roll call vote.

The Chair stated the text would remain as a draft policy and be presented as such at the PPC in San Antonio.

DF requested that the AC please post an explanation as to why they decided this to the PPML.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10

HS stated she would not be at the PPC and someone would need to present it there. She stated that there were no objections with regard to removing the /28 minimum during the PPML discussion. This draft policy seeks a /24 minimum, and some thought it was the other way around. Other than that confusion, there had been no further issues. Her hope was that after the PPC, this draft policy could be moved to recommended, draft policy status, and a staff and legal review would be conducted prior to that. The author would present it since the shepherds would not be at the PPC.

12. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

The Chair stated discussion of Item 4. Draft Policy 2014-1 would resume at this time.

OD stated that he believed that there was not much of an ability to move forward with it in its current form. The AC needed to find some way to address the fraud issue, and to enable organizations that are in-region with global networks to do one stop shopping for their address needs. Having one organization deal with five RIRS for little things is untenable. He pointed out that it was a recent change that we stopped letting them do that, and it was without the community’s consent.

LN clarified that it was not a recent change. ARIN issued space in-region for out of region use provided some address space was for ARIN in-region use as well. The only time we did it for both, provided address space for use outside the region, was in conjunction with an ARIN in-region use request.

OD stated that the recent change was that the out of region use was not counted. LN clarified that it did not. President asked if ARIN considered out of region use in assigning allocation size? LN answered that no, ARIN does not consider that.

The President stated that depending on how you define the problem statement, you have a draft policy that either does or does not solve the problem. If the problem is that the current guidelines in policy today for out-of-region use are unclear, as noted in the ARIN 33 policy experience report, then 2014-1 solves that problem. There are side affects in adopting policy in that, in the past, we did not have people seeking address space solely for out of region use – as would be allowed with this policy change. Now, if the problem that the draft policy is trying to address is something that is perceived to be the regional nature of the registry system, then that is a different problem statement and should be about changing ICP-2 accordingly.
The President asked the AC to consider that the Counsel’s legal assessment has noted a single remaining aspect and that is the ‘solely outside the ARIN service region’ aspect of the proposed change. Counsel indicated that the ambiguity in policy could still be addressed without conflicting ICP-2 so long as some of resources requested are for use within the ARIN region. It is not clear that the AC has discussed the merits of making that change as suggested in the staff assessment. It is a specific request and deserves discussion. It says that ARIN is still issuing to parties who require at least some ARIN services in the region – it may not be a big difference, but not having it there is philosophically very different, and says something very different about ICP-2.

OD asked that given this, if the AC did make that modification and the text was in RDP status, does it become a DP again and go back through the PDP? The President replied yes it becomes a DP and goes back through the PDP.

DH stated that he remembered this came from 2011 and staff seeing requests for resources from overseas fraudsters when APNIC had an austerity policy. ARIN did not know what to do when a requester sent a single router and then was back hauling to the mainland so that all of the resources were in the ARIN region – this did not meet the spirit of the RIR system. RS put forth a policy, and it was rejected, which said continue doing what you are doing – say no. This happened twice. Now the issue has come the other way to remove regional boundaries. I do not like the consequences as a former staff member, community member, or AC member. Counsel has made it clear he views it as a bad idea. I urged the AC to really listen to that.

The Chair asked if the AC could justify abandoning the proposal or opposing it because they believed it to be a bad idea.

DH believed that Counsel’s advice about potential increase in fraud being perpetrated was justification and he believed the AC must abandon the proposal.

MM stated that the philosophical principles did not bother him. He stated that as we approach allocations of IPv6, the logic is global and makes no sense for regionalization. It did not scare him to depart from the assumption of what RIRs are supposed to be. He asked if it was good and sound technical policy? One stop shopping is what most users in community support – the logic is unassailable. If we cannot find a way to do it we are failing. Territorializing address space of global networks is stupid. It is a block of numbers and can be assigned anywhere – why go through a different process to manage it?

MM continued on the issue of fraud, stating that he believed it as ‘scare talk’ and what is valid is temporary with regard to the remaining IPv4 free pool. How do you handle that? Implement the policy after depletion of the free pool; separate the IPv6 portion and continue struggling with it. According to DH and LN, it is currently happening under the status quo. We are already getting applications anyway from out of region. How many get through?

The President stated that requests from out-of-region have to be generated to make it appear that they are in the USA. We are likely to get a lot more of them if we state we are allocating for that purpose. MM believed that was a problem with IPv4 scarcity and inventive ways to get at the free pool as long it is still there. He believed that Counsel had some validity in his discussion with regard to IPv4 space, but it was not a basis for undermining the policy, which he believed was good policy.

JS stated that he needed a lot of straightforward reasoning before he would disregard what ARIN Counsel had to say. He has seen four iterations of this proposal, trying to set limits, etc.; and, the AC has tried for years and has not able to get it done. Counsel is still saying it is not ready, stating that there are things wrong. That is important to me.

The President explained that Counsel is entitled to provide his opinion, i.e. to the effect that if he were on the AC he would say it was a bad policy. It creates concerns with regard to serving parties outside of the region, and increases the risk of fraud. It would not be illegal to do it, but it could produce a lot of fraudulent requests. However, this is distinct from the legal opinion. Note that there is no clear statement that the policy change is unacceptable, with regard to the legal risk to ARIN (which is what Counsel would have said if the policy could not reasonably be adopted by the Board). Counsel’s comments are serious, but ARIN could adopt a policy if the Board decided to do so.

CT stated that we have an imperfect system and some fraudulent requests get through it. But do we want to create a worse situation? He was unsure that this was the way to solve it. Why react by solving a problem that will increase risk and misuse? CT asked that since this has existed for some time, why do this it now? It’s being driven by scarcity – we have a duty to be good stewards; fair and equitable allocation. He was happy to abandon it.

MM asked why is it that no one is commenting on the fact that scarcity is temporary, and we can defer implementation to depletion?

KB stated that he had been quiet to see what the community’s feedback would be. He noted that he had not heard support from a large number of people. He was concerned when staff and legal reviews have legal issues noting that usually there are never any legal issues. Can it be fixed? The status quo is much better than this policy creating an ‘albatross’. Keep in mind the stakeholders that may now come to the table, playing with the concept that has been around for many years (ICP-2) and I get scared when regulators are noticing it after the fact. If it were adopted, and you had an ARIN member come and say I want a /24 of CI space for IX in some country out of region and an EU regulator came and said you’re unfairly giving advantage to this company because they are American, when someone who is only in the EU can’t get it. We don’t have this issue today. Edge cases can come out of this policy.

SL asked the President why is the remedy bundling in and out of region use over just out of region use? The President replied because some of the use is in region, and some outside the region, we can still say some is in region. If you say it is totally outside the region, than that may easily be misunderstood as a change to the overall registry system. It’s the optics, not the facts of the situation, as it may cause people to say we are departing from the principles of the registry system. We don’t know what the consequences of that will be. SL stated that there is no technical difference. The President replied, no there is not, particularly since the requester is already in region.

SL agreed to re-examine it from the view that IPv4 is depleted and if the problems still exist or not.

DF urged the AC to read statement again. “Current policy neither clearly forbids nor clearly permits out or region use of ARIN registered resources.” He stated that was the problem. People do not know what is going on for ASNs or IPv6.. DF noted that this has been a problem from the beginning. He stated that we are building the IPv6 future now, and if we do it wrong we will have to live with it for a very long time. Learn from the past and figure it out. If we need to split this between IPv4 and IPv6, that would be perfectly fine.

The President stated that if there is an IPv6 problem then a problem statement saying so should be clearly written. An IPv6 problem statement would suggest several possible answers independent of the present proposal.

The Chair called for any other business items.

Any Other Business Continued:

Onboarding New AC Members

RS believed it a good idea this year, and possibly in the future to have small committee convene after the first AC meeting of the year (such as this one) consisting of some veteran members and new members to discuss recommendations on how to improve the on-boarding process. It could be formal or informal, or just a big report, but should include what went well, what went sub-optimally, recommendations for changes and improvements and citations that were appreciated. He suggested two veteran AC members, and two or more newly elected members.

DH had a counter proposal noting that the previous Chair had spoken with TM when she first started on the AC and he had walked her through everything: elections, travel, travel lottery. TM stated that she had not realized that wasn’t what was usually done for new members and thought it was done for each one. DH proposed that the Chair do that for new members after they are elected.

The Chair agreed to have a call with new members. CA suggested also capturing what went well and what has not (look at the process) per RS. RS stated that this was informal request but it may become a standing request if the AC should want it to be so.

The Chair asked if the AC needed a formality or would like to volunteer on the list. RS believed formality of the committee added structure. CA and DF agreed. DF suggested it be written down. The Chair called for volunteers and RS volunteered. He stated the crux of the work would be done in the next week or two. The Chair stated that for those interested in working with RS can convene after the AC workshop. All Agreed.

ARIN Services Working Group (ASWG)

The President stated that during the Board’s recent meeting, they discussed whether or not ARIN should have a ‘services working group’ to help define the services ARIN offers to its members and to help prioritize enhancements to these services. It would be discussed at the ARIN PPM in April with the community and he wanted the AC to be aware of this discussion. If supported by the community and approved to proceed, it would be a Board-chartered committee distinct from AC. Note also that due to more requests being received from the community, significant engineering resources were approved by the Board - this might reduce the need for a working group for prioritization of development work. Sometimes policy work crosses the line into services, and a Services WG might help that issue. The President stated he was open to thoughts from the AC; and added that there would be a brainstorming session with community at the April ARIN meeting.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 3:26 p.m. EST. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by KB. 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.