Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 19 March 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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.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)
  • Milton Mueller (MM)
  • 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
  • Richard Jimmerson, Interim Director, Registration Services


  • Stephen Ryan, Esq.


  • Chris Tacit

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 called for comments. RS stated that he would need to leave the meeting early due to a conflict.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 19 February 2015, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

MM stated that there were modifications considered. MM supported re-affirming the status of the draft policy as recommended.

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

“In recognition that Recommended Draft Policy ‘ARIN 2014-1 Out of Region Use’ would revert to draft status prior to the ARIN 35 meeting, the ARIN Advisory Council wishes to re-affirm 2014-1 as a Recommended Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. The PDP discourages changes to Recommended Draft Policies before they are put into last call, but it is possible. The PDP allows for revisions on policies that are in last call, but note that the AC needs to provide a detailed explanation for all of the changes; furthermore, the specific changes must have been discussed during the PPM, and this generally should be accompanied by an extended last call period.

MM asked if minor revisions could be made. The President stated that the draft could not remain a recommended draft if there are material changes. The community will be looking at it for adoption. The only changes that could be made would be administrative in nature. MM suggested one option could be to receive more community feedback and revise it after the PPM or, if it is accepted, pass it at the PPM. If it was revised, is it still a recommended draft policy and would it go to the next PPM? The President stated yes the draft would have to go to the next PPM if the revisions were substantial rather than administrative.

KB asked MM if he expected there to be other than administrative revisions. MM replied that changes would probably not be administrative as there were edits that were needed to be made to deal with the concerns expressed regarding something that pushes it to post exhaustion of IPv4. MM was uncertain if it had enough support to pass, but he believed most of the opposition came from staff rather than community, however people might still be divided. KB asked MM if his expectation was that he would rather the draft not pass, but revert back to a draft policy status? MM replied that he had no specific changes in mind but was looking to the community in April at ARIN 35 for comments.

OD asked as a point of order if the motion could be made by acclamation, as it was not a motion to move a policy forward. The Chair stated that some AC members requested a roll call vote. OD accepted the request.

The motion to re-affirm carried via roll call with 10 in favor (DA, KB, OD, AD, DF, SL, TM, MM, LS, JS), and 4 against (CA, DH, HS, RS).

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

RS stated that the staff and legal review was straightforward, with no concerns.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove Operational Reverse DNS Text’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. RS stated that this was a clean up proposal, eliminating concerns that it dealt with IPv4 and not IPv6. He stated the draft was rationalized and revised, and he would like to see discussion to see if it has broad support.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14: Needs Attestation for Some IPv4 Transfers

JS stated that there is new wording and he did not intend to make a motion at this point, but to have it discussed at ARIN 35.

AD noted that response had been light, despite long discussion of the topic. There was no significant support shown for the new draft so far, and going into the PPM, it did not look as though the new draft was well supported. MM asked AD if that was the reason why a motion was not being made to move it to recommended draft status. AD stated the plan was to have it as draft regardless, but since there has been no significant support, it was not justifiable to move it forward to recommended draft status. JS agreed with him.

The Chair asked AD if he believed work should continue if he saw no support for it. AD stated he did not, and if no support was shown at the PPM, or on the Public Policy Mailing List, he would support abandoning it after the ARIN 35 PPM.

AD stated that there have been no comments on the PPML from the last call.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-17: Change Utilization Requirements from Last-Allocation to Total-Aggregate’, recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair stated that last call ended on 10 March. There were not many comments that were notable. AD stated he did not recall that there were any comments made at all. It was checked and confirmed that there were no comments made. SL supported the motion.

Motion carried unanimously via roll call.

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

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

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

Chair called for discussion. DF stated that the draft went to the ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC) that was held during NANOG 63 in San Antonio. He noted there was a small amount of opposition for need. He had the sense that the community was in support regardless. Some were saying there was already enough reserved and others said that there was a runway long enough to justify the resources. ARIN 35 would indicate its direction.

DH asked if there was a metric rather than a ‘sense’ regarding the policy’s support and opposition. DF stated that they did not take a poll at the meeting but the show of hands at ARIN 35 will reveal a result. He noted that there had not been much discussion on the PPML since the PPC in San Antonio, but what was there was support. There had not been enough discussion on the list for more than a ‘sense’. DH stated that only two non-AC individuals spoke up during the PPC (for information).

KB asked that in light of not having a metric, should the AC try to move this draft policy forward two weeks prior to a PPM. DF replied that it has had support from community, and recently the slight opposition was by only a handful of people. He further noted that not many people supported the opposition. He believed the AC had enough information to move it forward and take the final show of hands at ARIN 35.

RS left at this time (4:36 p.m. EST).

The Chair stated that this motion to advance a draft policy to recommended, would result in it gaining more attention from the community, producing a better sense for/against support. DF agreed and reiterated that the only opposition has been an ‘opinion’ that there is enough reserved already. There has been no opposition for any revisions to be made. Otherwise, it has support and there was not much left to do from a PDP perspective.

DH asked if that made it worth moving to recommended draft policy status. MM stated that there was lukewarm opposition, and not a sufficient amount of support, but no one takes it seriously until we move it forward to the PPM. They can speak out then and dispose if they don’t like it.

The President reminded the AC that the criteria for a recommended draft policy is that the policy is technically sound, clear, and the AC believes that community would support it..

KB stated that, based on the President’s clarification, KB supported the motion. He believed the draft policy was clear and simple and would gain community support.

SL believed that at this point it was the AC’s responsibility to decide whether there was enough usage of critical infrastructure policy for the next few years to move this draft policy forward. He stated he was leaning toward support. He noted that it may not be needed, but believed there was no harm in reserving space a bit longer, rather than not having any reserved. He noted that there would be a couple more policy cycles of IANA space coming in, but supported this motion at this time.

OD agreed with SL but did not believe the AC should look at next few years. He stated that exchange points are going to need to deploy IPv4 for several years to come, and it was important to have the space to deploy exchange points. OD supported the draft policy moving forward.

The Chair asked OD what his thoughts were on what precludes exchange points from acquiring a block on the transfer market like everyone else. OD stated that many exchange points are not well funded and therefore cannot obtain them in that manner. The Chair stated he could understand that in the case of Africa and South America regions, but asked OD if it existed in the North America region. OD answered yes, in the Caribbean region of the ARIN region. The Chair agreed commenting that it was a point well made.

HS disagreed stating that ARIN had a policy for that already for Caribbean and that this was a financial matter, not an address allocation matter. She did not believe the AC should consider what it costs to acquire the space.

SL countered that this was the point of reserving space, so organizations could receive space from ARIN, rather than the market - having to pay market price for it. HS believed that ARIN should not decide which group of organizations receives space. Maybe there are organizations in Caribbean in that bucket, but the original idea was to allocate out of a special reserve because they were below an allocation window. HS further stated that there did not appear to be significant support for this draft policy, and noted there also was not a vocal group opposing it. She did not see the need to move it forward and would not recommend it.

MM asked HS if she were advocating not having reservation policy for critical infrastructure. HS replied affirmatively, stating that she would support eliminating it.

Motion carried with 10 in favor (KB, OD, AD, DF, DH, SL, TM, MM, LS, JS) and 3 against (DA, CA, HS) via roll call.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2014-22: Removal of Minimum in Section 4.10’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. HS stated the staff and legal review had been received and there were no concerns. DH stated that there was a heavy amount of support by operators from the NANOG group who attended the ARIN PPC in San Antonio. He believed it was a bad policy, but supporting the motion due to the evident community support.

The President asked DH if he believed the policy technically unsound. DH replied that that was a ‘religious debate’. He believed that the main thrust of support of the idea that ARIN can issue smaller than a /24 and it be carried in default free zone (DFZ) was foolish. He fundamentally disagreed, stating that the policy stands in the way of smaller blocks getting carried. He resisted ARIN policy set the threshold at a /24. DH stated it was well discussed at the PPC, and operators from NANOG and ARIN members alike spoke in support of the text.

SL agreed with DH that it was not the best idea but, given the support, moving the text forward was the right thing to do. He supported motion.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call.

10. ARIN-Proposal-215 Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments

SL stated that this text was a well-drafted proposal from a first-time proposal author with a clear problem statement and technically sound basis.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Proposal-215 Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. LS stated that no one should stand in the way of people getting IPv6 address space, and he supported the motion.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call.

11. APNIC 39 Update

The Chair called for an update from the recent APNIC 39 meeting held in Fukuoka, Japan. LS and TM had attended the meeting. TM stated that she had to leave the call shortly, but would provide a written trip report as well. She stated there were four policies, and one was abandoned. She noted that APNIC staff approached her regarding how the ARIN AC operates, as they were curious about forming an AC. She also stated that the way the APRICOT portion was run was much like a NANOG/ARIN PPC meeting, with overlapping sessions and she and LS missed content they wanted to see with regard to attending sessions on the operations side of things, in favor of attending the policy sessions.

TM left at this time (5:00 p.m. EST.)

LS stated that whois data base accuracy was discussed and to how to deal with multilingual whois data. He updated the AC on the APNIC proposals presented.

The Chair asked LS if he had any sense that APNIC was approving their approach on automated show of hands. LS noted it was still very early in deployment and that APNIC used it to obtain feedback from the attendees. He noted there were many options for strongly, partially, neutrally supporting a policy, and that it was hard to gauge in his opinion. KB noted that at the last APNIC meeting it was shown in real time to the room. LS stated it was shown again in real time at this meeting with a countdown timer. He stated that APNIC allowed beta sign-ups and he would send the URL in his trip report to the AC.

The President stated that the APNIC EC announced that they would be suspending inter-RIR transfers to and from RIPE when RIPE’s inter-RIR policy is implemented. APNIC has concerns about any potential interaction of the RIPE inter-RIR transfer policy with their ability to receive inter-RIR transfers from the ARIN region. The President stated we have been clear that ARIN transfers are evaluated pair-wise with each other RIR based on compatible policy. He was uncertain as to what confusion exists, as ARIN has sent clear information out on this topic. The President noted that ARIN policy could always change once APNIC - RIPE transfers became possible, but that would be entirely up to the community.

The Chair asked if the topic should be discussed at ARIN 35, suggesting it be covered when APNIC presents their RIR update. The President replied it was possible. He noted that he let APNIC know that ARIN was unaware of any ambiguity in its policy, and to let ARIN know if further clarification was needed. ARIN has not changed its Inter-RIR transfer policies and believes they are very clear regarding how they are implemented.

12. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

The President remarked that it has been suggested that the AC would benefit if they were given a private discussion on transfer markets, but caution is warranted if the information presented is business sensitive.

MM stated that there is a tension between full transparency and the need for technically sound policies that would be beneficial for the community – more knowledge is better. Community support is one of three criteria. He did not see the harm in AC members educating themselves, and gaining access to data that makes them more intelligent on the decisions they are making. It would better if the whole AC were privy to a briefing instead of only some individual AC members. MM stated that he understood the problem that if the AC were not careful, it could turn into lobbying; and, he was sympathetic to that matter.

The President agreed with MM that the AC should be as educated as possible. He was not adverse to that. He cautioned the AC in soliciting information privately and then initiating policy development based on it, without first giving it to the community in some form. He cautioned the AC simply to be aware of the risk and manage it in their efforts.

KB stated that he had received a lot of information from community members over the last couple of years on this matter, and have not been able to figure out if it was legitimate or not, or just ’talk’. Whatever someone says is unknown. There is little public information available and he has been at more of a disadvantage because the information received has been private. It can be fabrication or not - he has no way of knowing. He stated he was more interested in mapping if it correlates to the community as a whole, so he could sift through the data received from the people providing it.

JS suggested a panel to the community and asked how that might be formed. The President stated the ARIN 35 agenda could make time for that to be discussed.

HS suggested another option of having JS submit the idea as a suggestion to the NANOG Program Committee for their June meeting.

The Chair indicated the discussion be moved to the AC’s list in the interest of time, and to get feedback on how to proceed.

DH stated he would be happy to put together a panel with participants for ARIN 35.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:24 p.m. EDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by CA. 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.