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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.


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)
  • Leif Sawyer (LS)
  • Heather Schiller (HS)
  • Robert Seastrom (RS)
  • John Springer (JS)

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


  • Stephen Ryan, Esq.


  • Chris Tacit


  • Milton Mueller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

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

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 23 January 2015, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

TM stated that there were no updates at this time, and that it will be presented at ARIN 35 in April.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove Operational Reverse DNS Text

KB stated that discussion went well at the Public Policy Consultation (PPC) recently held in San Antonio, and that this can move forward as a Recommended Draft Policy at the next AC meeting in March. The Chair checked with staff to make sure that that was possible per the PDP. EB replied the text cannot be changed in March, but it can be moved to Recommended Draft Policy status at that time. KB stated he would ask RS to request an updated staff and legal review as well.

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

JS stated that there was not much discussion at the PPC in San Antonio, but that he amended the proposed text and posted it to the AC’s list where there was a fair amount of discussion. He asked AC whether or not they believed there would be more discussion, or could the policy shepherds move the text forward? AD thanked the AC for responding to the posting, and stated that a few more edits to the text were needed before posting to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) for community feedback.

KB, with regard to limiting the number of transfers, asked staff if the AC should scrap the draft policy completely or set a date-based cut off within the policy text to avoid queues? SL stated that if we implement a limit on the maximum number of transfers that can occur and we get close, then we have to decide which came in first before the limit was reached. He believed at that point ARIN would be in the same situation as IPv4 runout - transfers would be in a queue and could not be taken care of in parallel.

LN replied that staff had not thought about that situation yet, and they needed to do so. It was decided that staff would comment on this during the assessment and in the staff and legal review. KB stated it was something for the policy shepherds to think about with regard to ’time-based’ rather than ’numbers-based'.

RS joined at this time (4:20 pm EST).

OD stated that, in his opinion, time-based would not work. If it turns into a run-away, we need to shut the door and let the community review the results rather than have it keep going. Time-based lets run-away occur for that period of time.

KB suggested taking further discussion to the AC’s list in the interest of time for this meeting.

The Chair asked the policy shepherds if they had enough feedback from the AC, or did they need another round of discussion on the AC list before posting the text to the PPML. AD believed the text was ready at this point (with a few edits to be made). The shepherds would decide when to post the text to the PPML. AD stated that he would send updates to JS.

Counsel joined at this time (4:23 pm EST).

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances “Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from Last-Allocation to Total-Aggregate” to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. AD stated that the text was well supported at ARIN 34 since it had been revised, and it was supported on the PPML. Support was further confirmed at the PPC in San Antonio. He stated moving it to last call would see if there were any final issues.

The Chair asked for clarification if it was within procedure to send text to last call after a PPC? KB clarified that this text had been presented at a Public Policy Meeting (PPM) - ARIN 34 - and not just at a PPC with one concern that was corrected.

SL asked if there was any reason to worry about the timing of implementing this before IPv4 run-out, or should the implementation date be set for immediately after run-out? OD stated that the only reason this was coming up right before run-out was because it took a long time to get it to this point; and, that he saw no advantage to wait on implementation.

DH pointed out that the first stage of run-out is for large organizations, and that this is policy is for small organizations. There was time for this to be implemented. SL had no objections given these comments.

The motion to forward the text to last call carried with all in favor (DA, KB, CA, AD, OD, DF, DH, SL, TM, LS, HS, RS, JS) via roll call.

CA stated that she had ambivalence on this draft policy on whether to move it forward, abandon it, or present it at ARIN 35. She stated that the policy shepherds believed they needed to see what others thought about it. She stated the policy was a no-op (“no operation”), and that discussion was quiet at the PPC upon presentation.

OD stated that in terms of policy and/or ARIN action, it was a no-op, but that it provides a clearer description of the policy that was already implemented. He believed it was worth putting it on the books if there was support for it during last call, but if not, then it should be presented at the ARIN 35 meeting.

DH stated to OD’s comment that if clarity was needed in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), he would be willing to work on submitting policy text to rewrite the MDN sections to make them clearer. As for this proposal text, he agreed it was a no-op and supported abandoning it; and then finding other ways to demonstrate the clarity, as OD noted, was needed.

The Chair asked CA if she believed it was worth presenting at ARIN 35. CA suggested posting it to the PPML, and the AC could discuss any feedback at their meeting in March. The Chair agreed stating it could then be moved to last call or abandoned at that time.

DF asked if procedurally, text that is at the Recommended Draft Policy level would remain there, or would it need to be renewed before the ARIN meeting? EB answered that, per the PDP, within sixty days of a PPM, the AC would need to review the policy and make a recommendation. If it were not advanced to last call within sixty days, it would indeed revert back to Draft Policy status.

KB commented that this was good information, as there were a couple of recommended draft policies on the AC’s docket. As for this policy text, he agreed with DH – it was complicated text, and it was a no-op. He was in support of starting fresh, stating that if MDN has edge cases, it behooved the AC to start fresh. He believed it should be abandoned at some point.

SL asked if anyone objected, since it was a no-op and had a clarification issue, if it should be abandoned now, as it did not change ARIN practice. He noted there were other avenues for clarification, such as clarifying the documentation on the ARIN website. Was there any reason not to abandon this at this point, given it was a no-op?

The Chair noted that OD voiced support for moving it forward, and asked if anyone shared OD or SL’s thoughts. CA stated she was leaning toward SL’s suggestion to abandon.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons “Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-19: New MDN Allocation Based on Past Utilization.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that if the motion carries, the AC needed to send a message to the PPML explaining that it was because staff practice reflects what is in the text, and that AC would make a note that staff document such, without additional policy changes.

The motion to abandon the text carried with 12 in favor (DA, KB, CA, AD, DF, DH, SL, TM, LS, HS, RS, JS), and one against (OD) via roll call.

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

DF stated that there was but small discussion at the PPC upon presentation. He noted he would likely be making motion to advance this to Recommended Draft Policy status at the AC’s next meeting in March. He acknowledged that the staff and legal review had been done as well. The Chair asked if there would be any textual changes before March. DF confirmed that no changes were to be made, and that he would post the text to the PPML to confirm.

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

HS stated that she had seen from the PPC transcripts and notes to the AC list, that this text was well received. She suggested moving it to Recommended Draft Policy based upon the PPC’s results. It was noted that the staff and legal review had not been requested. HS stated that she would send the request for the staff and legal review to the Chair.

11. Discuss Update to Section 5 of the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM)

The Chair stated that DF had sent a note to the AC’s list to clarify the ranges of AS numbers in the NRPM. DF stated that there had been Requests For Comments (RFCs) that clarified a few things such as, the last AS 65535 is a ‘special’ last AS, not a private AS, that was reserved for other reasons, and there were a larger range of private AS’s that have been allocated. It was a technical editorial change to the text that should either be removed or corrected.

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

“The Advisory Council requests that ARIN staff begin the process of a non-substantial update to Section 5 of the Number Resource Policy Manual to reflect the additional private use AS numbers defined by the IETF.”

The Chair called for discussion. JS asked for clarity as to what was being done here, versus what was just done to 2014-19. He believed this was a different way of doing the same thing, and rather than abandoning 2014-19, should a motion to this affect have been made instead?

SL clarified that the difference was that in the case of 2014-19 the AC is recommending that ARIN change the website documents not the NRPM. This current motion is a NRPM change, albeit editorial, but it needs a motion to be accomplished.

OD stated that he was fine with motion except that it did not actually reflect what DF had stated. There was a removal of items, and we need to amend what we really want. It needs to state our true intention.

SL suggested a friendly amendment to the motion to replace the word “additional” to “changes in”. The Chair asked if OD supported this change. OD agreed to the change. The Chair asked CA if she supported the change as she had seconded the motion. CA supported it as well.

The new motion reads:

“The Advisory Council requests that ARIN staff begin the process of a non-substantial update to Section 5 of the Number Resource Policy Manual to reflect the changes in private use AS numbers defined by the IETF.”

JS noted that in 2013-XX there was an editorial change made to which he crafted a proposal, and it got implemented. He further questioned this as a third procedure to accomplishing the same outcome, on top of abandoning it and crafting instructions to staff.

The Chair clarified that the difference is at the state at which the conversation starts: some start as proposals and are editorial in nature. This one did not start as a proposal. It does not require a proposal to start the editorial review process.

JS asked that if it is a proposal, the text exists. With regard to 2014-19, the proposal text may be there; but for this item’s motion, there is no recommended proposal text for him to support.

The Chair asked staff for clarification with regard to the fact that this discussion is not about approving text, but rather requesting that staff start an editorial process; and that staff has to announce that the to PPML. Then, it will come back to the AC for approval in order to advance it to the ARIN Board for ratification. We are voting here to start the process, not to make the changes.

EB confirmed that the Chair’s explanation was correct. Staff is to send a message for a 30-day comment period to the PPML on the proposed changes at this point.

JS asked if this was then on the docket for the AC’s meeting in March to discuss the results of the PPML comment period? The Chair answered that the 30-day review process would not be closed at that time, so the text would not be sent to the ARIN Board until April.

The amended motion to update Section 5 of the NRPM carried with 12 in favor (DA, KB, CA, AD, OD, DF, SL, TM, LS, HS, RS, JS), and one abstention (DH) via roll call.

DH stated that he had abstained because, due to extensive travel, he had not had time to fact-check what was being proposed; therefore, he would not vote on something he had not fact-checked. He appreciated DF bringing this update of the NRPM to the AC’s attention.

12. Any Other Business

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

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:58 p.m. EST. JS moved to adjourn, seconded by OD. 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.