Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 December 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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.


These minutes are DRAFT. They have been reviewed by the ARIN Advisory Council prior to posting. These minutes will remain draft until they are reviewed and approved by the ARIN Advisory Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting.

Draft Minutes

Advisory Council Attendees:

  • Dan Alexander, Chair (DA)
  • Kevin Blumberg, Vice Chair (KB)
  • Owen DeLong (OD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • David Huberman (DH)
  • Scott Leibrand (SL)
  • Milton Mueller (MM)
  • Leif Sawyer (LS)
  • Heather Schiller (HS)
  • Robert Seastrom (RS)
  • John Springer (JS)
  • Chris Tacit (CT)


  • Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Einar Bohlin, Sr. Policy Analyst
  • Nate Davis, COO
  • Richard Jimmerson, (RJ) CIO & Interim Director, Registration Services

ARIN General Counsel

  • Stephen M. Ryan


  • Amy Potter, (AP) 2016 Member-Elect


  • Cathy Aronson, Andrew Dul, Tina Morris

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged the regrets received.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for comments. The Chair added a staff overview of the Chair election process to Any Other Business.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Ratified Policies

Informational item. At their meeting on 10 December 2015, the ARIN Board of Trustees ratified the following recommended draft policies, per the recommendation of the ARIN Advisory Council:

  • Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-1: Modification to Criteria for IPv6 Initial End-User Assignments.
  • Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-4: Modify Section 8.2 to Better Reflect How ARIN Handles Reorganizations.

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

CT stated that text was being revised with the authors. He stated that revisions for review would be forthcoming by early next week that would attempt to overcome concerns that were expressed at ARIN 36 and the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) with regard to avoiding an anti-flip provision.

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

DF stated there was not much to report in the way of an update. He would submit minor cleanup revisions for review, and would request an updated staff and legal review. DF stated he would most likely request moving this policy to recommended draft status at the AC’s meeting in January.

KB asked what the timeline was for requesting a staff and legal prior to the AC’s January meeting? EB stated they must be requested by 04 January. KB thanked him for the information.

The Chair asked DF if this policy needed to go to the ARIN Public Policy Consultation in February as a recommended draft policy. DF stated the policy could be presented as a recommended draft policy, and should be ready to be presented, but it would not ’need’ to be presented as a recommended draft policy at that time.

The Chair explained that at the AC’s meeting in November, this Recommended Draft Policy (RDP) was erroneously moved to Last Call. After the ARIN 36 meeting took place in October, the AC met face-to-face and advanced this policy to Recommended Draft Policy status. However, per the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP), an RDP cannot be advanced to ’last call’ until it has been presented an ARIN Public Policy Meeting (PPM) or an ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC) as an RDP.

The President explained that, per Robert’s Rules of Order, which ARIN operates under, if the AC entertains a motion contrary to ARIN’s adopted documents, such as the Policy Development Process (PDP), the outcome is null and void - even if it is approved by the AC.

Per the PDP, RDP 2015-5 cannot be advanced to Last Call, as it has not been to a public consultation as a Recommended Draft Policy. The AC’s November minutes will have a notation added that the motion was improper at the time, and thus is null and void.

JS noted that there would be plenty of time to move the policy to ’last call’, if the AC wanted to wait and present this RDP at the next PPM (ARIN 37) in April of 2016. The Chair stated it is at the AC’s discretion on whether or not to take any policy to the next PPC in February, and present it at that time.

OD stated that he has found that not taking final action on a policy if it has not been presented at either a PPC or a PPM has worked out relatively well; and, he did not see any problem with moving policies to last call after presenting them at a PPC.

JS stated that he acknowledged the President’s reference to the PDP, and he noted that this policy has been through possibly 8 meetings in one form or another. SL stated it was not in Recommended Draft status at ARIN 36, and the AC was unsure it would gain consensus at that meeting. SL did not believe it would be a ‘slam dunk’ at the next meeting, and cautioned to consider it after the next PPC. KB agreed with SL, stating that the AC has a good track record with community at PPMs. Once the PPC is over, the AC needs to look at the PPML discussion and the results from the PPC. He believed it was too early to advance this policy.

The Chair asked HS if there have been any changes proposed. HS stated there had not been any changes proposed.

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

KB stated that there were no updates from the last AC meeting. He was waiting on the outcome of RDP 2015-5, and did not believe this policy needed to be presented at the PPC in February.

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

RS stated that no changes had occurred. He stated it would be nice to have this policy presented at the PPC in February for further discussion.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment Records for IPv4 End-Users

CT stated that this policy was posted to PPML and did not have much support other than folks wanted to avoid ISP fees for ISP services. He noted that the author had commented on the need to look at the issue of ISP versus end-user with regard to the services being provided to the two as part of the Services Working Group. As for the policy itself, there was no support or advice provided.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2015-8: Reassignment Records for IPv4 End-Users’.”

The Chair called for discussion. SL stated that one open issue is RWHOIS. It was his understanding that ARIN allows large end-users to use the database. If the policy is abandoned, do we want them to still use it - possibly with ISP fees?

The President stated that ARIN has allowed end-users to make use of RHWOIS to assist with services such as geo-location and that ARIN will not change the practice if the policy proposal were abandoned, but would welcome an in-depth consideration of the issue by the community at some point. The President stated that the matter would be brought to the ARIN Services WG once it is chartered by the Board in January.

KB supported the motion to abandon noting many negative concerns. He did not believe said concerns could be fixed with the proposal’s intent as written. The RWHOIS database is not related to the proposal, but should be resolved in a different way. There are a number of issues outside the policy process.

RS apologized and stated he needed to leave call at this time due to a conflict. (4:34 p.m. EST).

OD supported motion to abandon stating that he believed the result of the proposal was for RWHOIS to continue to be used. Even if that were changed, that is not what this proposal is about, and that matter should be a separate proposal. OD did not believe that this policy spoke to that.

DH opposed the motion and believed it should have more discussion through one more PPM.

The Chair supported the motion to abandon. He noted to CT that if the motion passed, the statement of abandonment should note that this work should be carried to the Services Working Group. CT agreed.

The motion to abandon carried with 9 in favor (DA, KB, OD, DF, SL, LS, HS, JS, CT) and two against (DH, MM) via roll call.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating Needs-Based Evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 Transfers of IPv4 Netblocks

LS stated there was no update at this time. He noted that he had asked the author if he would accept abandonment of this policy and work on separate proposals, but LS had not received a response. The Chair asked if LS had been waiting long for a reply from the author. LS stated he had not been waiting long, approximately only for two days.

12. Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove Transfer Language Which Only Applied Pre-Exhaustion of IPv4 Pool

MM stated that he had tried to send a message to the AC’s list to move this policy to an RDP status. The staff and legal review was received and said that the only effect of the policy would be to remove inoperative language.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove Transfer Language Which Only Applied Pre-Exhaustion of v4 Pool’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. MM stated that the staff and legal review had been received on 22 October. The Chair asked if any objections were addressed. MM stated that the staff and legal reviewed clarified any concerns.

KB stated asked what community support was seen with regard to moving to advance this policy to RDP status. KB had seen that there were only three in favor on the PPML. He asked how was the support at ARIN 36? MM stated there was not a lot of discussion because it was not a controversial policy. MM noted he was not present at the ARIN 36 discussion of this policy. SL stated there was not a lot of enthusiasm on the policy at ARIN 36, but noted there was also no opposition.

JS noted the criteria for a policy: community support, technically sound statement, and if it was fair and impartial. He found all three criteria to be in tact and supported the motion. The President agreed with JS stating that the AC had a basis to advance the policy.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

The Chair asked MM to work with EB on the statement regarding the policy’s conformance to principles. MM stated he would do so.

13. Update on Preparations for ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC)

The Chair provided an update to the AC stating that a proposal was submitted for holding an ARIN PPC session during NANOG 66 to the NANOG Program Committee. An agenda has not yet been submitted. He stated the proposals to be presented at the PPC would be discussed on the AC’s list.

CT stated that after making changes to Draft Policy 2015-2, he believed it would be useful to disucss it at the PPC.

KB pointed out that when the AC discusses the proposals to be presented, it was important to consider which proposals are going to be discussable for the community at NANOG. They are a technical community and a wholly non-technical discussion will not be helpful. He stated it would be important for the AC to keep the presentations relevant for NANOG. The Chair stated that all the policies will be brought up and mentioned at the PPC. The Chair will provide status updates to the community. The discussion on the AC’s list will be centered around which policies will be presented in detail, for discussions to gain feedback for advancement.

JS recommend that RDP 2015-5 be discussed. He hoped it would not be determined non-relevant to NANOG folks. He stated he would bring this up on the AC’s list. The Chair agreed.

The President recommended that the AC determine the list of policies to be discussed as soon as possible, and to submit an update with that information to the NANOG Program Committee, as they are entitled to that information for their evaluation of the worthiness of the session. The Chair acknowledged the advice and noted that it was still early in the process.

KB stated that he is on the Program Committee and is remaining uninvolved. A policy shepherd has been assigned, and the Program Committee is working actively on the proposals. KB agreed with the President’s advice to get the list of policies for discussion submitted as soon as possible.

14. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

  • Thanks to out-going AC Member. The Chair thanked Heather Schiller for her work on the AC, as it was her last teleconference with the AC. He appreciated all of her service to the Council. He also congratulated her on her new baby.

  • AC Chair Election Overview. EB provided an overview of the Chair election process to the AC. The Chair stated the recent conversations on the AC’s list regarding the process are open conversations and ideas being put forth. He noted that the AC is not asking for changes to be made in the process.

  • The President recommended the AC take copious notes regarding their thoughts on the Chair election process, but noted the best time to discuss the matter would be at the upcoming AC’s face-to-face meeting in January, in order to make changes to the 2017 AC Chair Election process.

15. Adjournment

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