Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 April 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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.

San Francisco, California

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:

  • Einar Bohlin (EB), Sr. Policy Analyst

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Nate Davis, COO
  • Richard Jimmerson, Interim Director, Registration Services


  • Stephen Ryan, Esq.


  • Paul Anderersen, Vice Chair and Treasurer, ARIN Board of Trustees

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:09 p.m. PDT. The presence of quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments. The Chair added a discussion regarding assignments of proposal shepherds under Any Other Business; and noted an email sent to the AC about the possible creation of four groups within the AC. He stated that the groups could be established during the AC’s workshop. KB requested adding an item regarding voting. The Chair agreed to add this also under Any Other Business.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

MM noted there had been good discussion and support for this Recommended Draft Policy (RDP), and suggested moving it to last call. DA reviewed the show of support counts from the Public Policy Meeting (PPM).

It was moved by MM, and seconded by DH, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. MM stated that he did not believe the RDP would pass but he believed that it should move forward, as it gained support from PPMs and Public Policy Consultations (PPC). He noted that there was ambiguity that needed to be clarified and that there was consensus that ‘something’ must be done. The Chair agreed that something needed to be done, but asked about the text as written. MM did not believe any further revisions would garner more support.

OD referred to the staff and legal review, stated that this proposal was not the solution, and the AC needed to start over. DH noted both strong support and strong opposition, that there was no consensus for this RDP, but agreed that work needed to continue. RS agreed stating that there was there is no harm in doing this over, that, in fact, the free pool will be gone which will assist in getting something done. KB noted that there was no consensus, that the problem statement needed work, and that the community has stated that we did not address the staff and legal concerns - after 15 months we need a fresh start, it’s not time critical.

The President reviewed the last call requirements in the PDP. He stated that if there was substantial opposition expressed during community consultation, the AC needed to consider it and explain why they still advanced the proposal. The Chair stated that the AC needed to be able to explain it to those who voiced opposition to the draft policy. JS and CT referred to the legal concerns, and how they have not been addressed. MM stated that since organizations were already using space outside the region, he did not believe the risk was that great. HS stated that the only numbers to review are the votes from the PPM. Counsel noted that ARIN staff did not oppose the proposal, but had an obligation to express potential issues if adopted. The President pointed out that the Board has to balance the risk when they review a proposal. If this proposal were illegal, it would have not come this far. He noted that the issues that result from serving out of region are not clear-cut for RIRs, and from a legal perspective ARIN today deals with jurisdictional issues that pose challenges. If the proposal advances, ARIN will deal with more of them; however, we have no way of knowing how many more requests will come in.

The motion to move the RDP to last call failed, with 1 in favor (MM) and 14 against (DA, KB, CA, OD, AD, DF, DH, SL, TM, LS, HS, RS, JS, CT) via roll call.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-1: Out of Region Use.’”

The Chair called for discussion. DF asked what the plan was going forward if the RDP was abandoned. The Chair stated that the AC would later discuss the possible creation of a sub-group for in-region/out-of-region use during their workshop. DH asked if a proposal were needed to continue working on the matter. DA and KB noted that the AC could work on the issue, even without a special group. AD believed that the community wanted the AC to work on this, and would support abandonment when there was another proposal on the table. SL and OD agreed him.

The President noted that this vote called for a simple majority of the AC, not two-thirds.

The motion to abandon carried with 9 in favor (CA KB OD TM HS RS JS CT DA) and 6 against (AD DF DH SL MM LS).

The Chair asked OD and RS to write the statement of abandonment. They agreed.

Counsel left the meeting at this time due to a scheduling conflict.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove Operational Reverse DNS Text’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. DA reviewed the PPM show of support information.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2014-14: Needs Attestation for Some IPv4 Transfers.’”

The Chair called for discussion. JS noted that this has DP had been on the AC docket for one year, that the original text was overtaken by events; and, that problems discovered with the original text had led to the problem statement and the text being rewritten. There would be other proposals and he believed the AC could start over. The Chair reviewed the show of support information. AD stated that the rewrite did not gain sufficient support. MM asked JS for clarification. JS replied that the opposition was not clear. SL believed that ARIN needed to make it easier for ISPs to get space across the board. TM noted the lack of support, and supported the motion to abandon. JS noted the three policy principles and noted that this DP met the first two, but there was not sufficient support for it. He supported abandonment of the DP. KB referred to the 25% requirement for end users, stating that if that can be worked on, then this DP would not be necessary for end users.

Motion to abandon carried with 12 in favor (DA KB CA OD AD DF SL LS HS RS JS CT) and 3 against (DH TM MM).

As an informational item, this RDP is awaiting ARIN Board ratification. The President stated he could announce the outcome next week.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that the majority of the community wanted to increase the reservation, and believed that no changes to the text would please the opposition. The Chair reviewed the PPM show of support information. JS noted that, if this was not needed at a later date, it could be returned and would be the more prudent move. SL also noted ARIN could get a /16 later from IANA for this – that it was not the last chance - however, he saw no problem in doing it now. HS and DF spoke about possible IETF work to create a shared /23 for IXs. KB noted that this is about critical infrastructure, would there really be space later?

The President believed that the next pool from IANA under the global post-exhaustion policy would be approximately a /14 equivalent in September. He also noted making any reservations right now is relatively low risk, whereas making them much later it would be a poor choice because it would be done literally right in front of people waiting in line. OD believed this was needed for IXs, and that the alternatives technologies were not good. RS agreed. The Chair noted that there were only a few /24s issued from the /16 and asked “Why another /16?” RJ replied that there have been about 10 IX allocations in the last 12 months. The President noted that the pool could last three to five years at current run rate. He asked RJ for a timeline of IX allocations from the pool. The Chair stated that the growth of IXs will not be linear to infinity - there are constraints. KB noted that the IX community said they needed a /16, and believed it should be done now. OD noted that there were a lot of IXs not using space from the CI pool, and that those IXs should be counted in the run rate.

The motion carried with 14 in favor (DA KB CA OD AD DF DH SL TM MM LS RS JS CT) and 1 against (HS) via roll call.

The AC took a short break. Upon return CA reminded members that they don’t frequently get to meet face-to-face and that they should take advantage of the time by paying more attention to each other than to their laptops.

KB noted that there had been good suggestions to improve the policy. He noted that the AC has the time and they need to check with the operators. DH stated that the operators will say nothing smaller than a /24 will route, but that is not correct; it has always been about money. KB stated that it was not about announcing routes - rather it was about routeability. DH pointed out that filters used to be at /19, then at /20, it could take a while.

RS noted that filters used to be on registry boundaries, now it was /24. Peers would not accept /28s, and, there would be no covering route. These were not supposed to be used for critical infrastructure. They were supposed to be used for transition. It is possible /28s could route, but RS was dubious about the speed path being sufficient to accomplish that.
DF stated that when the policy originally passed, the /10 was not significantly announced, and it was tucked away on the web. CA said this is our only end game policy, we specifically identified the /10, so if filters would be relaxed it would be for this range. The space might not be globally routable as we were reminded.

RS stated he was in favor of abandoning the DP. He believed global uniqueness was key, not routeability. DF wanted more exposure of the /10 block, not the policy.

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. SL agreed with CA and RS, that /28s could be useful, stating that “we are conflating routeability and usefulness”. He believed that if all someone needed was a /28, they should be able to get one. OD noted that staff was using a permissive understanding of the policy. The Chair reviewed the show of support information from the PPM.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments

SL stated that there was support for this, and that it would eventually make it to Recommended Draft status. The Chair reviewed the show of support information from the PPM. DF stated that this was covered as a table topic at the ARIN 35 lunch break, and that there was support for it. SL stated that there was no requirement for the requesting organization to be a single network, but if it is, there can be a single announcement

11. Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) Section 5 – Editorial Update to ASNs.

(Posted to PPML 24 February 2015)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council finds the revisions to the ARIN NRPM Section 5 to be editorial in nature, and recommends that they be adopted by the ARIN Board of Trustees.”

The Chair called for discussion. The President noted that there was no opposition to these edits on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML).

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

12. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

Voting/Strawman Polls at ARIN PPMs

KB referenced the CONFER system used at the recent APNIC PPM. During ARIN 35, he asked the community “Who cannot vote?” and noted that about one quarter to one third said they could not vote.

Paul Andersen pointed out that many of those were ARIN staff, other RIR staff, and ICANN staff. KB noted that there are some who can not go to the mike, or raise their hands. He believed that a tool for anonymous voting could get a more accurate roll call in the room. He suggested the format could ask for ‘yes’, ’no’, ’no comment’ answers. JS stated he was in favor of seeing who voted.

The President stated that some AC members do not vote, because they did not want to influence the outcome. In the case of the Board, some want to express their views. He asked if the AC preferred enabling more people to express their views, or real-time monitoring like the CONFER system. He was uncertain if real-time feedback is something the AC wanted to base their decisions upon.

MM liked the concerns that KB had expressed. People watch, AC members talk, the usual suspects speak. There could be improvements, and it could be a worthy experiment. KB asked staff to consider a tool for handheld anonymous voting. The President stated that everyone who asked could be included in the show of support except for ARIN staff. He wanted it to be clear that voting could not be restricted by ARIN if anyone, such as another RIR staff member or a Board member, sought to participate.

ND asked if any new system would require IPv6 support, as ARIN’s policy is to only deploy tools that support IPv6 unless there is no alternative. KB stated that the tool is important enough that ARIN should waive the IPv6 requirement. OD liked the visibility of being to see who was voting as it provided more information than an anonymous system. The Chair asked if OD was opposed to an experiment? OD stated that an experiment, as an addition to the show of hands, would be fine. HS asked if other RIR staff could vote or if it was just “custom”? Perhaps they should be excluded from the room count? HS did not believe the public nature is preventing them from voting.

KB disagreed, stated that people have told him they cannot publicly vote. JS noted that those people could then talk to AC members. Some are shy - there are other ways to get your opinion known. JS asked what would be done with the data? Would we want to weigh more heavily new data instead of a visible show of hands?

The President asked what problem was trying to be solved? If it was the AC and Board being able to show support privately, then that could be done via enhancement to the existing remote participation tools, but if it was for the ability for everyone to be real-time polled for their view, then that would be a different tool. Paul Andersen asked if the results were anonymous or known to AC. KB stated he would like to work with staff to figure out choices and come back to AC with information.

The Chair asked ND if staff had looked at these tools. ND replied that staff had looked at some tools previously, but they were not IPv6 compatible and focused on collaboration. He stated it was good to have AC feedback on that matter. DH believed that the votes are too low, and suggested doing away with them, or conduct them on the PPML after the meeting with an online survey tool.

MM asked if anyone believed the current system was satisfactory. He stated that we are discussing an ’experiment’, let’s think about it. JS pointed out that the AC was talking about getting information they don’t currently have, but should not lose the information that they currently do possess. He believed that good information is obtained from seeing who voted.

CT stated that one method of voting was needed that worked for the majority, whether it be by ballot voting or show of hands, and that if ballot voting is adopted, a survey could be used in conjunction with it to obtain reasons; however, the voting needs to be done quickly after discussion, because people are less likely to vote or provide opinions some time after the discussion occurs.

The President pointed out that the AC had the freedom to see who voted, as the AC needed to determine support. He noted that there is an anchor in the PDP that is a contemporaneous discussion regarding voting. The AC can experiment, or ask ARIN to change its practices. The total participation, in the room and remotely, is relatively small but useful for shaping policy. ARIN can survey the greater community, as is done in other organizations via actual balloting, if desired. The AC should decide how they wish to measure support. If the AC wishes to change their process, the President requested that the AC allow him time to present it to the ARIN Board for review.

The Chair stated that the AC should let KB to work on this, and to please take it to the list. All agreed.

Proposal Shepherd Assignments

The Chair discussed the role of Proposal Shepherds and explained that the Primary Shepherd should guide the Secondary Shepherd, so that they can learn how to shepherd a proposal.

Four Sub-groups of the AC

The Chair discussed establishing four sub-groups within the AC to handle the following matters:

  1. AC approach to the October NANOG PPC.
  2. In-Region/Out-of-Region Use of Number Resources.
  3. Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) Simplification.
  4. AC Management of the ARIN Policy Experience Report.

The Chair asked if the AC wanted to create groups for these matters, or discuss them on their list? AD asked what the measure of success would be for these groups.

The Chair reviewed item one, AC approach to the October NANOG PPC. He noted an upcoming PPC in June. For the October ARIN/NANOG meeting, he stated the AC should figure out how they should interact with NANOG. PPCs are part of the PDP, and let us move proposals to last call. We also want to get more operator feedback and need a better understanding.

The Chair stated that the discussions of In-Region/Out-of-Region use of number resources would continue.

He stated that the NRPM keeps getting larger and there could be changes after IPv4 depletion.

Lastly, the Chair asked the AC “What should the AC actually do with the ARIN Policy Experience Reports?” The AC should perhaps report on what they did with that feedback, if anything. DF suggested that this could become part of the AC’s report. KB noted that the AC sometimes reacts too quickly to this report, creating a proposal that takes two years to get abandoned. In that light, the AC should give themselves a couple of weeks before responding to experience reports.

The Chair asked if the AC wanted the suggested dedicated groups. He noted that if so, they should be established. DH stated that he was not in favor of formal working groups. He believed the nice part about the AC was taking leadership on the AC’s list. DF suggested conference calls, as they have been productive in the past as a means of discussing items. JS was in favor of a group for the NRPM simplification, and PPC, but not in-region/out-of-region use, as that was policy, and he did not believe a group was needed for the experience report.

SL agreed with DH, that working groups were not needed and that adhoc meetings work. KB pointed out that groups need leadership.

MM believed that a discussion about Out-of-Region Use is policy, and should be on the list.
CT believed that the NRPM Simplification needed some structure versus separate proposals.

The Chair stated that the PPC and NRPM Simplification could use groups.

CT believed that the Experience Report could be a five-minute discussion during each AC call. KB noted that the Experience Report has been asked for in advance. The President suggested that the AC could have the report a week before the meeting.

The Chair called for any other business items.

The President stated that in regard to NANOG, there was no MOU yet in place. NANOG has some organizational constraints on how they do things with respect to their conference program, but they also know that PPCs are important to ARIN. They want us to ask for the session via their normal processes, and that should be done by the AC Chair with support from staff. The AC does not need to ask for a PPC if you do not want one. You can have the content you want in the PPC. You decide whether you have a need for the PPC and choose the content. For example, you may not want a PPC at the October meeting, or it could be good to have one to work things out before the PPM.

DH interjected that when the waiting list starts, we will receive proposals for eliminating needs basis, and that is something for the AC to think about.

OD stated that with regard to the proposal about Section 8.2 of the NRPM, he suggested it could be handled as an editorial update.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 3:47p.m. PDT. JS 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.