Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 June 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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.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)
  • Chris Tacit (CT)

Minute Taker:

  • Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
  • Einar Bohlin (EB), Senior Policy Analyst
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Nate Davis, COO


  • Stephen Ryan, Esq.

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged that DH would be delayed.

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 SL, that:

“The Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 21 May 2015, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Policy Ratifications - Informational Item

The Chair stated that on 10 June 2015, the ARIN Board of Trustees ratified the following policies:

  • Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-6: Remove Operational Reverse DNS Text
  • Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-21: Modification to CI Pool Size per Section 4.4

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

It was moved by SL that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments’ for adoption.”

As a point of order, AD asked if that if the draft policy is past the 90-day mark, does it need a reaffirmation before being moved to Recommended Draft Policy? The Chair explained the proposal is only in a Draft Policy state, and not yet a Recommended Draft Policy. Therefore the proposal did not need to be reaffirmed. It is in Recommended Draft Policy state that the ‘past 90 day mark’ issue may arise, causing a reaffirmation of the policy text. AD thanked him for the clarification.

The Chair called for a second on the motion made. DF seconded the motion.

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that the text is simple and adds 13 active sites as a requirement. There was good discussion at the Public Policy Consultation (PPC) in San Francisco, and a number of participants thought it was a good idea. SL stated that there were suggestions made at the PPC for relaxing things further; however, those would constitute additional proposals.

DH joined at this time (4:15 p.m. EDT).

SL stated that he believed that those proposals could be and should be done separately. He stated that there were no objections to this text, and believed it was ready to move forward as a Recommended Draft Policy for ARIN 36 in October. SL noted that the Staff and Legal Assessment had been performed - outcome of which confirmed that the policy does what the AC thought it should do.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients)

Presented at ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 64, 02 June, in San Francisco. CA stated that there was a lively discussion for such a little policy on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). She asked the AC for feedback from the PPC, as she had been unable to attend. TM stated there had been support – much like the posts on PPML. She noted there had been some feedback about the text regarding transfers being able to be made to one entity only, not just open-ended transfers. There was general support of the concept. TM stated that she would resend the notes to the AC shepherds of the proposal. The community discussion needed to continue. CA stated that the text might need to be revised.

KB queried that, excluding the significant side matters that went off kilter on the PPML discussion, was there really support for policy? He noted that he read a lot of negative comments on transfers out of region and on this policy itself. Some folks do not want to see Inter-RIR transfers at all and they are lumping it into this policy.

OD had also seen opposition to the policy itself. He stated he did not like the expansion that it allowed and believed there was enough opposition not to advance the policy.
The Chair asked if changes could be made to gain support. OD believed that at a minimum, a restriction of same organization transfers could be added, but believed that would have a low probability of success. He personally supported abandoning the text at this point in time.

The Chair stated that if the proposal Shepherds believed it could potentially move forward with text changes, they should do so. CA was unsure if she disagreed with OD’s comments, but stated she would add the language and re-post the text. SL agreed that the negative reactions might make it hard to salvage the proposal. He suggested abandoning and trying a different approach, focusing on the aspect of transfers within a single company. That would be a different proposal.

KB stated he did not support abandonment until there was a sense of the number of people involved. There were a select group that was opposed, and they were not part of the policy. He believed it premature to abandon it at this time and believed it worthwhile moving it forward to see the outcome.

The Chair clarified that he had not been speaking for or against the policy, trusting Shepherds to make the judgment call.

CA stated she would not be making a motion to advance or abandon the text. The AC would continue working on it. CT agreed that when there were this many comments against something it might be difficult to save it.

The Chair stated the Shepherds would decide what to do and would discuss it at the next AC meeting.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-day Utilization Requirement in End-user IPv4 Policy

Presented at ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 64, 02 June, in San Francisco. LS stated that there was a brief discussion on the PPML, mostly against the policy. He had not heard feedback from the presentation at the PPC. SL stated that there was agreement with the problem statement on the removal of the 30-day contingency; however, there was no consensus on a solution. LS stated that the text needed to be re-posted for feedback on suggestions for a solution. DF noted that it was not discussed very much on the PPML due to time taken on the discussion of Draft Policy 2015-2.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4: Modify Section 8.2 to Better Reflect How ARIN Handles Reorganizations

Presented at ARIN Public Policy Consultation at NANOG 64, 02 June, in San Francisco. OD stated that it needed continued work and should be presented at ARIN 36 in October. KB stated that at the PPC the sense of room was supportive, with no negativity.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4: Modify Section 8.2 to Better Reflect How ARIN Handles Reorganizations’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. EB pointed out that the Staff and Legal Assessment had not yet been requested on this text. Given this, OD withdrew the motion. The Chair asked EB to initiate the assessment. EB agreed. The Chair stated he would normally push harder on next steps for this text, however the PPML discussions had delayed progress.

9. ARIN-Prop-219: Out-of-Region Use

TM stated that the intent and problem statement were clear.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-219: Out-of-Region Use’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. TM stated that she was looking forward to the community’s feedback, as it was a hotly contested issue. KB voiced concern that the problem statement of this proposal was 95% the same as the problem statement for the abandoned text of 2014-1. As this text is still in the proposal phase, he believed it needed to be worked on to differentiate it from the abandoned text of 2014-1.

OD believed the text was perfect. He stated that 2014-1 was abandoned since a problem needed to be solved, but the proposal was not workable. Now we are better addressing it by providing a new proposed solution. He applauded author’s efforts and supported the motion.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

10. ARIN-Prop-220: Transfers and Multi-National Networks

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-220: Transfers and Multi-National Networks’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. KB stated that the problem statement was clear, noting community support in the proposal phase. He wondered if it mimicked ARIN-Prop-219 and that the two proposals should be combined? OD believed it was different enough to stand on its own, as it dealt with the issue in a very different manner. JS agreed that the criterion was clear, and that the proposal was in-scope. He supported the motion.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote

11. ARIN-Prop-221: Simplified Requirements for Demonstrated Need for IPv4 Transfers

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-221: Simplified Requirements for Demonstrated Need for IPv4 Transfers’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. RS noted that the text was simple and clear. He was unsure that he agreed with its substance, but noted that it was well defined.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

12. NANOG 65/ARIN 36 Update

The Chair noted the conversation on the AC’s mailing list regarding the future AC face-to-face meeting in October during ARIN 36. He had requested that staff to consider expanding the ARIN 36 Public Policy Meeting agenda into Friday to continue discussion on proposals. He reported that staff is working on that agenda.

Given the expansion of the ARIN agenda, the Chair noted that it is likely that the AC’s face-to-face meeting would be the day after, on Saturday. He noted that the PPC session would not take place earlier in the week during NANOG 65.

Discussion ensued on whether to hold the AC’s face-to-face meeting on Friday evening after the ARIN 36 Member Meeting, or on Saturday. After gauging the sense of the AC, the Chair set the AC’s face-to-face meeting to take place on Friday afternoon from 3:00 to 7:00 p.m.

CT left the meeting at this time (5:10 pm. EDT).

13. Any Other Business

Called for Any other business.


KB stated that he had spoken with with EB at the PPC in San Francisco regarding using Survey Monkey for this task. He stated he would be putting together a document for the AC on Survey Monkey, noting that the process will mimic how we do things now. It will add a longer polling window, but would still get the AC the information they needed in time for their meeting. He noted it was also possible to use Survey Monkey as a general tool for the whole community.

AD wanted to see ARIN move forward with this to expand the input base. The President was happy to see the AC exploring this issue. He noted that some organizations conduct polls of membership when working on standards and they ask each organization to approve proceeding. For those who dissent, they have the member explain why they would not agree on the standard, or what change the member needed to see in order to be able to proceed. He suggested that the AC explore similar approaches, among other other options. KB stated he believed it best at this point in time to start out small and would keep it in mind for community text-based email. The President acknowledged the value of starting small.

POC Validation Policy Experience Report

DH stated he wanted to follow up on RJ’s policy experience report on POC validation. He noted useful PPML discussion with regard to solutions. He volunteered to craft a proposal on the matter asking if anyone else wanted to join him. AD stated that he had sent a message asking staff about what was policy versus operational in need, but he did not recall seeing a reply. He stated that it would be useful to get that prior to crafting a proposal. The Chair stated he would get an answer from staff for the AC. OD agreed with AD. OD stated that, from the emails read, most if not all of the information is operational and not policy related. He believed that the proposed changes could be made without changing policy. Assuming this was the case, DH asked the President if he needed the AC’s action on this matter.

The President replied that indeed it was an operational staff issue and a policy proposal would not be needed. He requested that DH send the changes to ARIN staff and they would be posted through the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP).

Discussion of an ARIN Services Working Group

On a related point, KB expressed concern that 90% of the policy proposals are coming from AC members. He was concerned that the community was not getting involved and would consider that the AC would write the proposals for them. He expressed his preference for a community member championing the proposals. He stated the AC could assist, but not be the ones writing the text.

The President agreed stating that it would be great to have more of the community involved in discussions. KB stated he would be happy to send the POC validation matter to the PPML and ask the question, but believed it would be best coming from the President.

The President stated that with respect to purely service changes and operational matters, he’d prefer seeing more discussion of the idea of a Services Working Group, including a Chair and Co-Chair to lead it - once established, new ideas for service changes can go through that community process.

JS stated that, by definition, are we not members of the community? Restricting us from proposing policy is restricting members of community. The Chair stated it was more about the non-AC community members’ perception of the AC pushing its work forward and not facilitating work by others.

SL suggested posting policy ideas to the PPML before they are inserted into the Policy Development Process. It may be useful to have discussions in the drafting language stage and maybe that way the AC would find a co-author. The Chair agreed.

The President highly recommended co-authors to help with policy work. He noted that it also builds capacity by making new faces familiar with the policy development process, thus improving the pool of future AC candidates, etc. The Chair agreed.

14. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:29 p.m. EDT. RS 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.