Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 16 July 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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.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)
  • Owen DeLong (OD)
  • Andrew Dul (AD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • Scott Leibrand (SL)
  • Tina Morris (TM)
  • 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
  • Richard Jimmerson, (RJ), Interim Director, Registration Services
  • Leslie Nobile (LN), Sr. Director, Global Registry Knowledge


  • Stephen Ryan, Esq.


  • Cathy Aronson, David Huberman, Milton Mueller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged the AC members who had sent their regrets.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments. SL requested delaying discussion of item 4 (Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments) as he had a conflict at this time. The Chair agreed to do so.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 18 June 2015, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

Deferred until later in the meeting.

The Chair stated the agenda would proceed at item 5 and onward until such time as SL was available to discuss item 4.

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

CT stated that he and CA had agreed with the policy authors that this draft policy could be presented at ARIN 36 in Montreal as presently worded. The staff and legal review was received, and no problems were identified. He added that opposition on the PPML (Public Policy Mailing List) was targeted and narrow.

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

LS stated that there had been little discussion and only one email of opposition on the PPML. The text would be submitted for staff and legal review, and posted to the PPML for another round of discussion prior to presentation at ARIN 36. The Chair requested that LS send the request for the review to him. LS agreed to do so.

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

It was moved by OD, and seconded by KB, 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. OD stated this draft policy was editorial in nature, and some AC members believed it needed more community feedback. He believed the text would most likely gain consensus with community and that the text was clear in nature.

The motion carried with all in favor via roll call vote.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out-of-Region Use

The Chair stated that the staff and legal review was not yet ready for this draft policy.

(TM disconnected from the call at this time 4:14 p.m. EDT and rejoined a few minutes later)

HS stated that they were awaiting the staff and legal review and that there were no further updates.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-6: Transfers and Multi-National Networks

KB stated that he was not planning on making revisions to the text. He noted two concerns that arose on PPML: 1) With regard to the term ‘multi-national’ - people were equating the term with large organizations and KB pointed out that that term does not necessarily equal a large organization. This was a clarification he would address. 2) With regard to the policy’s requirements - the requirements came out of 2014-1 where there had been legal concerns with regard to ensuring that an organization had a presence within the ARIN region. Those requirements were included in the text, and KB believed it to be a ‘catch-22’ because without a staff and legal review it would be difficult to explain the reasoning to community; however, there had been very little discussion on the PPML. KB explained that he was happy with the text as written, and was not requesting a staff and legal review so that it could be moved to ‘recommended draft policy’ status, but rather to move the discussion on the PPML in one direction or the other. KB asked the AC their thoughts on this, as it was not the normal procedure.

OD stated that he agreed with requesting a staff and legal review as soon as possible, and then posting the text to the PPML so that it was easier to explain it to the community.

The President pointed out that staff and legal reviews were requested customarily when the text was solid enough (not undergoing further revisions) to post to the community. If the AC needed a staff and legal review to improve the discussion, staff would be happy to assist. KB stated that he believed that the text was solid enough to request the staff and legal review and to have the community provide feedback.

The policy shepherds then requested that the Chair submit the request for a staff and legal review to be conducted. The Chair and staff agreed to do so.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified Requirements for Demonstrated Need for IPv4 Transfers

RS stated that there had literally been no discussion on the PPML regarding this draft policy. He stated he would try to foster discussion on the PPML before a staff and legal review was requested. RS believed the draft policy would be controversial, despite the fact that no discussion had taken place on PPML.

The Chair asked if SL was available to discuss item 4. SL replied that he was ready to provide an update at this time.

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

SL Stated that in the comments on the PPML, a number of people discussed the level of detail. The result was to modify how the draft policy would be presented: present the differences rather than restate the whole draft policy text. He stated he would be presenting it at ARIN 36 with one minor revision. The Chair asked SL if the revision would be posted well ahead of the ARIN meeting. SL confirmed that it would be, and that he was waiting for the PPML discussion to settle down before he made the edit.

The Chair thanked SL and resumed the rest of the agenda.

11. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

ARIN Services Working Group (ASWG) Update

The President stated that the ASWG had ideas that were being written up and would be shared with the AC when they became available. The Chair stated that the members of the group conducted a call a week ago. As KB was a member, the Chair asked him to provide an update to the AC.

KB stated that he had received a basic document in terms of how ARIN operates committee environments, and that he was reworking the document. He would have a draft tomorrow for review that would present a framework for the ASWG. KB stated that there was further work yet to be done, but that basically it was similar to a standing nomination committee-type of group where all interested parties could work together with the goal of looking at suggestions and making recommendations on them. They would then pass that to the ARIN community for feedback and then to ARIN itself. KB stated that the ASWG was meant to help facilitate and streamline active community members who were involved, and get their feedback to ARIN staff as quickly as possible. The Chair agreed.

The Chair called for any other business items.

ARIN IPv4 Waiting List

AD asked staff if any matters had risen to the forefront from ‘waitlist land’ that needed the AC’s attention, now that IPv4 was scarce. The President replied there were no matters of such at this time, however he suggested that the AC think strategically about the fact that there would not be people coming off of the waitlist in future years. Currently, the waitlist was performing in a functional way, but next year that would not be the case. There would be a small set of blocks coming from IANA in September, but the waitlist would be permanent; and, we need to figure out how we want the NRPM (Number Resource Policy Manual) to reflect that fact.

KB stated it sounded like the end policy “for a concert that doesn’t exist, but people line up to get tickets in advance of everyone else, because they didn’t know the concert wasn’t going to happen.” He queried that if someone is on the waitlist for years and they are first in queue, how can they say they have a need if it will be years before they get resources? The President reiterated that next year the waitlist will no longer be functional in a meaningful manner, i.e. no one would be coming off of the waitlist. Additionally, all transfers under the NRPM are predicated on criteria presently hidden in assignment and allocation policy. This is not currently an urgent matter, but there is strategic work that needs to begin. He suggested that the AC think about what they want their RIR to look like 10 years from now – what an RIR with IPv6 should look like, and then work backwards from that to aim in the right direction.

RJ stated that in the case that people are on the waitlist for a long time, there is currently policy that has a provision for unmet requests that specifies a timely revalidation of the requests, and ARIN would follow that provision.

OD stated that he did not see much of a need for fussing with policy as things play out. If people believed that IPv4 was going to be available, then they have not been paying attention. Everyone knew it was going to run out 20 years ago. They may have needs, but they will not be getting them met. IPv4 will be irrelevant. We can hope they return unused resources to ARIN, and that people will come off of the waitlist, but hopefully they do that because it is not available and then we can update the NRPM.

The Chair stated that he, SL, KB and a few others were discussing special groups within the NRPM that would need simplification. They were emailing ideas regarding areas in the IPv4-depleted world (transfers, end-users and ISPs, slow start, and Whois requirements were the major topics) and how the NRPM would need to be simplified. Conversations with regard to how to approach the problem resulted in the belief that it is a ‘catch-22’, in that changes would be done through an omnibus proposal and those proposals were usually unsuccessful. The matter was how to get started at chipping away at the larger problem without crafting a monster proposal.

The President stated that explaining to someone to transfer IPv4 is to follow a policy that is based on need, and need is embedded in allocation and assignment policy – it is confusing to folks why it is linked there. The problem with getting on the waitlist is that it leaves the impression that it is a viable approach to getting resources. ARIN has had to explain to the community and the press/media that it has no idea if they will ever get off the waitlist. At some point, the waitlist will be disingenuous.

DF suggested looking at what we call the ‘waitlist’ or the ‘waitlist policy’. The original intent was not a mechanism to obtain resources - it was a mechanism to ensure that resources did not sit at ARIN; and, that it was a fair way to distribute the ‘crumbs’ that came back. The resources need to go somewhere to be put to good use.

The Chair noted that there was no shortage of conversation as the AC worked through this – it could easily be a year’s worth of policy work. He stated that all ideas were welcome and he invited any and all conversations to the AC list.

RS stated that forward-looking language is a problem when it addresses false hopes. He suggested language to the effect of “Based on the anticipated rate of reclamation and added acquisitions to IANA, someone going into the queue on [date] would almost certainly not get resources any earlier than [date]” – looking 3 years out. It would serve the purpose of getting rid of false hopes and make it explicitly clear to folks.

The President responded that it is not likely folks entering the waitlist later this year will ever get their resources met. RS asked if the ARIN website has language to that affect? The President responded that since ARIN could not state that that was not the case, e.g. someone could return a large block, it is not possible to state authoritatively what will happen. ARIN has a waitlist function that is currently valuable; however, next year it will not be valuable. The President was simply responding to AD’s question about what policy issues have arisen with IPv4 run-out, noting that the AC needs to think about the waitlist matter in a strategic way.

RS believed that any disclaimer that said that the odds are infinitesimal and are getting worse is better than what is currently posted on the website, as it raises hope rather than directing folks go look elsewhere. The President explained that from a risk perspective, ARIN literally cannot state that, but he appreciated the suggestion. The AC will need to look ahead and think about what purpose the waitlist would serve in years ahead.

The Chair stated he and the AC understood the President’s message as far as strategic thinking and shifting policies to a post-IPv4 depleted world. OD agreed.

KB stated he agreed and suggested that IANA’s global policy states that every 6 months it divides it up appropriately. ARIN may receive so little space that it does not matter. It may set better expectations if there is no expectation of space, or so little space that it doesn’t matter. Then, staff would not have to maintain a permanent queue.

The Chair stated the discussion would continue on the AC’s mailing list. He called for any further business items. There were no further comments.

12. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:44 p.m. EDT. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by RS. 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.