Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 February 2016 [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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.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)
  • Andrew Dul (AD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • David Huberman (DH)
  • Tina Morris (TM)
  • Amy Potter (AP)
  • Leif Sawyer (LS)
  • Robert Seastrom (RS)
  • Chris Tacit (CT)


  • Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
  • Einar Bohlin, Sr. Policy Analyst
  • Nate Davis, COO
  • Richard Jimmerson, CIO & Acting Director, Registration Services

ARIN General Counsel

  • Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.


  • Owen DeLong


  • Cathy Aronson, John Curran, Scott Leibrand, Milton Mueller, John Springer

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:07 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. The Chair noted there would be two items added to Any Other Business: Information on the 2017 AC Face to Face Meeting, and a brief report on the recent ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC).

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 22 January 2016, as written.”

The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

CT stated that this draft policy was presented at the recent ARIN Public Policy Consultation (PPC) in San Diego, and that the proposed amendment was posted to the AC’s list. CT noted that this is an appropriate balance between out-of RIR transfers and avoidance of an anti-flip provision.

The Chair noted that the policy did not have a staff and legal review. CT stated that after revising the text, the proposal shepherds would request a staff and legal review. The Chair asked CT to send him a request via email after CT posts the revised text to the AC’s list. CT agreed, stating that the primary shepherd, CA, although not on this teleconference, was also in agreement.

The Chair asked CT if he and the AC thought the policy would be presented at ARIN 37 in recommended draft policy (RDP) status. CT stated that if the staff and legal review comes back in a positive light, he and CA did plan to move the draft policy to recommended draft policy status at the next AC meeting. He noted that readability was the goal.

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

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-day Utilization Requirement in End-user IPv4 Policy’ for adoption, as amended, changing the word ‘criterion’ to ‘criteria’.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated that the staff and legal review was updated and there were no intent changes. He was updating the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) so that it is clear to everyone.

The Chair suggested the statement of conformance explain why the AC chose to pass on the staff review comments about additional changes to the NRPM, which can be done by cleaning the text up at a later time. DF agreed.

DF stated that there was some dissent on wanting to provide hard criteria for evidence required to justify an allocation. This view was in the minority but was there.

DH stated ARIN has used the one-year without it, for years without a problem; and, it is technically not a problem for the Registry.

KB stated that he believed that the policy met the criteria for moving it to RDP status and believed that, as it stands, it is appropriate. He believed that if community feedback ends up supporting additional criteria, the AC could revisit it at the time. He supported the motion stating that there was time to revisit this later.

The Chair noted that while moving forward, in spite of the objection, the AC should acknowledge it in the statement of conformance. DF agreed.

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

The COO stated that MA had difficulty joining the call, but was connected at this time (4:21 p.m. EST).

TM stated that this RDP was presented at the PPC in San Diego, and that frustration was expressed that it had not moved to last call sooner. Therefore:

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-5: Out-of-Region Use’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. TM stated that there was only one opposition regarding the list of ways that an organization could provide to demonstrate business operations in the ARIN region. When it was explained that the list should be considered as examples, the opposition was withdrawn. The Chair noted that there were 50 people in room at the PPC with roughly 33 who were not on the AC or RIR staff and there were 21 in favor, and 0 against.

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

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

KB stated that now that 2015-5 is being moved to last call, he was hoping to move to abandon this DP, but he would wait until the last call phase completes on 2015-5.

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

KB stated that this policy had garnered a lot of discussion at the PPC, and a lot of good information resulted for the policy shepherds to use. He noted this DP had the longest discussion at the PPC. He requested that the policy shepherds that had proposals at the PPC review the webcast for the sense of room, as he was very involved and did not recall the outcomes. He deferred to RS.

RS stated there were two main questions:

  1. He noted that there was an existential question with regard to ARIN as an operational registry versus a title registry. He acknowledged Counsel’s concern about address space over which one has control, but believed this should be worked on as a separate discussion. He was thinking of it as a statement of where ARIN wanted to go with regard to addressing this problem, and asked if the AC had any concerns in framing it in that manner. There were no concerns.
  2. He stated there was a question with regard to ambiguity on ARIN space. Is it space you are certifying as in-region space utilization, or worldwide space? Some wanted it to be ARIN space only. Some liked the ambiguity, as it frames discussion in whatever makes the most sense to the customer. No one codified it as worldwide space. RS asked the AC, “Do we want to address the concern about ambiguity and move toward only ARIN space, or leave it alone?” He noted that it may not solve the problem, but leaving it ambiguous versus failing to make a choice are very different things.

The Chair called for comments. DF believed it was fine to leaving it ambiguous, as it was what everyone has lived with, and he did not believe there was much downside to leaving it that way. He stated he would like to think about it further.

KB asked that with moving 2015-5 to Last Call, and what was stated in the NRPM, the ambiguity specificity would not apply because of using ARIN space outside of the region, however using ARIN space in-region would count. Do you count global resources toward the ARIN region?

RS stated that that was the implication. He noted that he should have said ‘space allocated by the ARIN registry" versus “assigned by the RIRs”, regardless of where it was used.

KB stated that whether we default to global, or leave it ambiguous, we are showing all of the use for all of the RIRs, with all of the RIRs having different use cases, and applying that to the ARIN region and that is not fair.

RS recalled that the President’s words were that ARIN would interpret it ‘generously’. RS interpreted that to mean that unless there was a mandate to chase down space from other RIRs, ARIN would not cross that bridge. He asked the AC “how do we codify that - if that is what we want to do?”

The Chair stated that this issue would not be able to be resolved at this meeting and requested the matter be discussed on the AC’s mailing list. RS clarified that he was not looking for an answer to the question, but rather looking for refinement of the question and the argument.

AD suggested that the AC think about where they wanted this matter to end up in the end, and not necessarily ’the next step’. If we reduce utilization requirements for transfers, do we care in the long term? Figuring out where we want to be in the end may help us in the short term.

DF implored the AC to expand the discussion and look at IPv6, and not worry about corner cases in IPv4. He urged the AC to think about how an IPv6 world should look.

RS stated that he was looking for the AC to collectively sleep on the question and provide feedback to him on their mailing list in order for him to post something to the PPML. If the AC could craft text, this policy could be presented at ARIN 37 as an RDP.

The Chair summarized that the RS was looking for longer-term next steps, and to send the policy to ARIN 37 as an RDP. RS stated that was correct. The Chair agreed stating the AC should take the discussion to their list and then to the PPML if needed. RS thanked him.

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

LS stated that the Section 8.4 portion of the proposal was revised recently posted to the PPML for community feedback.. He noted that to date, there has been very negative feedback received on the policy. However, he noted that he did not believe it has had enough time on the PPML to gauge a final sense of feedback.

The Chair asked if this policy was discussed at the PPC? LS answered that it was not. The Chair clarified that the Chair had mentioned it in the ‘Chair Update’ at the PPC, but no discussion took place at the PPC. He stated the AC would continue monitor feedback on the PPML and discuss it at the next AC meeting.

The Chair asked LS if he believed that feedback would turn around considerably for this policy to be presented at ARIN 37, or would it be considered for abandonment due to negative comments received thus far? LS stated that there were two in favor and five opposed currently, and if it continued to be opposed, he would consider abandoning it. He stated that most comments indicated that the policy was not impartial, and was unfair.

KB queried that people are not arguing semantics or numbers, but rather they are fundamentally opposed to the policy – that there is no revising it, per the people that have opposed it - correct? LS answered affirmatively. KB stated that if that continued, the AC could not improve the policy - correct? LS answered yes, that is what he had meant.

The Chair stated more time was needed on the PPML to get a larger sample set in order to make a decision going forward. LS and KB agreed.

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

RS stated that there was no update at this time. The Chair asked KB if he had received feedback from the PPC. KB stated a 23 to 0 vote was conducted in support of the policy, but little discussion. He noted it was a ‘clean up’ proposal and believed it was ready for last call, but will leave that to the policy shepherds. There was no negative or positive discussion. Everyone had voted in support of the policy.

DH asked if a staff and legal review had been conducted. The Chair stated there had been a review. DH asked if the review brought up any concerns stating that his hesitation was with regard to unintended consequences.

The CIO reviewed the staff and legal for the AC. There were no material legal issues at the time the review was conducted (October of 2015). DH stated that he believed the policy to be premature, but if staff believes it’s inoperative, it had his support to move forward.

As a side conversation for clarification, the Chair stated that a revised staff and legal on 2015-3 was delivered earlier this week. Counsel replied he did not perform an updated ’legal’ review on that policy text.

RS stated he would entertain a motion to move to last call.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-11: Remove Transfer Language Which Only Applied Pre-Exhaustion of v4 Pool.’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. DH stated the policy had gone through the Policy Development Process (PDP), had support, and he did not see anyone against it. He noted that staff had reviewed the text and it was inoperative text. It was a clean up policy, and he supported the motion.

KB agreed stating that it removed text that people did not know was inoperative, and that it had created confusion.

The Chair stated that at the PPC in San Diego, there were 50 people in the room with 33 people who were not staff or AC members. There were 23 in favor and 0 against - 6 of which were hands-up in online chat. There was definite support for moving forward.

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

11. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

2017 AC Face-to-Face Meeting

The Chair announced that, per the AC’s request, arrangements have been made for the AC’s first meeting of 2017 to be held in Seattle in January.


The Chair stated that not all of the AC’s proposals were presented, and good feedback was received on what was presented. People appreciated the consideration of their time in only presenting certain proposals and not all of them. The revolving theme was that if a proposal were being presented at a PPC, it would be to discuss proposals that cannot wait, or need to be taken care of. It worked out well at the PPC in San Diego because the feedback received on 2015-5 was positive with regard to moving it forward. The Chair noted that the AC had previously discussed not holding a PPC in June. The Chair stated he was putting that on hold for now and asked for any thoughts.

KB stated he believed it was a successful PPC. By not focusing on every proposal, the proposals presented were well received. With regard to holding a PPC in June, KB stated he was unsure of any that would benefit after ARIN 37, which would have just taken place in April.

The Chair agreed. He did not want to have a June PPC viewed as a waste of time. DF stated he believed it would be beneficial to find a way for someone to do a main plenary session, or something to that effect, to stay in front of the community. The Chair acknowledged it was a valid point but noted that if the AC did not have valid proposals to present, they should not do so. DF agreed.

KB noted that a PPC is a specific event with regard to NANOG with specific requirements. He asked DF if the AC should do something such as submitting a proposal, or something related to IP numbers? That would be a different type of event.

DF stated he was suggesting whether it was the AC or the policy community, ARIN should make a presence of some kind at the next NANOG meeting. He was unsure of the scope at this time, but stated he would think about it further. He believed it was best to have a policy presence of some kind, but not a PPC for the sake of a PPC.

AD stated that he liked the idea and suggested perhaps a lightening talk or a discussion on the RPKI agreement changing.

12. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:03 p.m. EDT. DF moved to adjourn, seconded by LS. 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.