Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 20 April 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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.

Montego Bay, Jamaica

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)
  • Amy Potter (AP)
  • Leif Sawyer (LS)
  • Robert Seastrom (RS)
  • John Springer (JS)
  • Chris Tacit (CT)


  • Einar Bohlin

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Nate Davis, COO
  • Susan Hamlin (SH), Dir. Communications & Member Services
  • Sean Hopkins, Communications and Technical Editor
  • Richard Jimmerson, CIO & Acting Director, Registration Services
  • Paul Andersen (PA), ARIN Board of Trustees

ARIN General Counsel

  • Stephen M. Ryan (SR or Counsel), Esq.

Observer and Other:

  • Adam Gosling, APNIC
  • One person supporting audio-visual needs

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:22 p.m. local time.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. He added a discussion of the IPv4 waiting list to any other business and a discussion on CA’s suggestion of observers at AC meetings.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 17 March 2016, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. The motion carried with no objections.

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

CT stated that there was support for the proposal. There was an editorial change suggested that could be discussed on the AC’s list. If there were no concerns, the plan was to post the text to the AC’s Wiki and to the PPML, and then consider advancing this draft policy at the next AC meeting to Recommended Draft status. The Chair suggested moving quickly, stating that he would request a revised staff and legal assessment. CT stated that text was already posted to the AC’s list, and asked the AC to provide feedback.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-3: Remove 30-day Utilization Requirement in End-User IPv4 Policy’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF noted that there was general support and one objection. He noted that the community understood the objection, but would rather advance the proposal at this time. The Chair reviewed the show of hands from the Public Policy Meeting (PPM). KB noted that there was a reclamation concern with the 30-day window change, but the benefit to the community from the policy outweighed that objection. SL noted that a community member was confused about their 24 month needs requirement, and another proposal involving officer attestation.

The Chair called for a roll call vote. The motion carried unanimously.

DF stated that he would submit a proposal regarding some of the other issues raised by staff from the staff and legal review, including references to RFC 2050.

The Chair requested an update from the recent Board of Trustees meeting, where this policy was considered. Board Vice Chair, Paul Andersen, stated that the Board had ratified this policy at their meeting on 19 April 2016.

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

RS stated that there was actionable feedback to fix the text in accordance with how staff would implement this. The Chair reviewed the show of hands from the PPM, which indicated support to continue work. RS was unsure consensus could be reached. MM stated that there were no amendments or objections. RS stated that the change was editorial. JS noted the PDP principles, and stated that the proposal meets all three of the principles. RS stated that there would be no motion at this time; and, that he would post revisions to the text to the list. SL noted a suggestion about having 80% utilization, with some in favor of that suggestion. He stated that the text was posted to the AC’s list, and asked the AC if it should go in that direction, or continue with the existing text.

AD stated that he believed there was support for the current draft of the policy, although the comments at the meeting and on the PPML did not reflect this belief. The new changes being proposed to the draft policy on the AC mailing list did not align with the original problem statement. AD believed the intent of the policy was to replace traditional needs assessment with an officer attestation. If the AC desired to use the new language, it could be separated into a new proposal. AD asked if staff would interpret the draft policy to require a utilization test prior to accepting a transfer or was that irrelevant?

The President reviewed the text that would be put into 8.3 and 8.4. He stated that an organization must demonstrate their request, telling staff where they will use the addresses and how they would be at 50% utilization. He noted it was clear from the policy’s intent, and discussions on the PPML, that the intent was that if the plan was attested by an officer, staff would accept that plan; in other words, no further due diligence would be required by ARIN.

AD asked that when ARIN gets a transfer request, was staff looking at current utilization and doing an 80% utilization check? The President stated that staff would look at all resources and all demand if the transfer was approved. The President noted a question that was raised at the PPM: “Is it possible for ARIN to go back and check after two years?” The President indicated staff would do what the policy tells staff to do, but otherwise, no. If the AC wanted policy to have staff check after two years, that change would need a staff assessment, particularly regarding resources required. On the other had, if staff did not go back and check, what would prevent someone from fabricating something? Section 12 already gave staff the ability to conduct an audit. Section 12 was applicable to fraudulent requests. The President noted that the AC might consider reminding the community of this.

RS asked if such a reminder should go in the problem statement or as part of the policy text? The President stated that staff could implement this policy text, and the discussed intent. Clarification would be helpful, but was not necessary. DF suggested adding an admonition to the policy text. DF would like to send both proposals to PPML, and proceed slowly and steadily. The Chair noted this proposal was from May of 2015. MM thanked the Chair for statement regarding age of this draft.

MM stated that with regard to the matter of 80% versus 50% utilization; he did not think that would be supported. He added that with regard to a /16 and smaller, he believed that was an arbitrary threshold, and did not support it. The alternative proposal was a different proposal. The AC should make the edits and move this forward, adding the Section 12 reference.

KB noted there was currently no general policy with regard to the maximum size an organization could receive. The math would allow an organization to easily show the need for a /8, and the policy needed to make sure that was understood. JS pointed out that this was a transfer policy for unused addresses, there was no harm done when those addresses become used, it does not have to be perfect. JS asked SL what the intent was - a fully fleshed out needs assessment with officer attestation? Or was the attestation a replacement?

The President stated that when one made a request, staff went back and forth in order to document the request and clarify the organization’s need. At the end of the process, staff requested an officer attestation. That was the current process. He asked what level of diligence did the AC want staff to do with this proposal - was that the intent of this proposal? SL stated that the original intent was that a plan would be given to staff, staff would make sure it was a complete plan, and the officer attestation would make it a credible plan. Staff’s interpretation of this proposal version aligned with the intent. JS stated that it needed further word-smithing. SL believed that the President’s suggested additions were a good idea. The President noted there was policy text, staff believed it understood the text, and that staff did its best to do so, but it would be better to be clearer. JS read a revised version of the sentence referring to officer attestation in the policy text. RS asked JS to send that to him.

CT believed that the text of the proposal reflected the status quo and, to help alleviate confusion, it would be good to add the current practice into the problem statement. OD agreed that the alternative text should be crafted into another proposal, and volunteered to do so. RS spoke about what would constitute an actual plan, noting that a plan was about the future, and one should not be punished for not meeting a plan.

The Chair asked RS and MM to modify the text and to send the revision to the AC’s list. RS stated that he would also work with JS. The Chair noted that this would need an updated staff and legal review.

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

LS pointed out that consensus had not been reached. He asked if the AC should wait and see what happens with 2015-7, or call for abandonment. He also asked if the AC should go back and rewrite the whole policy. He pointed out that the text was not gaining any traction. OD reviewed the show of hands, and beleived that it should be abandoned.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons “Draft Policy ARIN-2015-9: Eliminating Needs-Based Evaluation for Section 8.2, 8.3, and 8.4 Transfers of IPv4 Netblocks.”

The Chair called for discussion. KB stated that he was in support of the motion. The presentation showed the problem statement alone, and we were hoping to get support for that but did not. Even the problem statement needs a substantive rewrite to begin to get support. RS supported abandonment. JS stated that the AC only needed to get support, not necessarily consensus. He was not in favor of the motion, and believed this was premature. KB pointed out that he was not only using the room count, but also the overall discussion and the results of conversations with others at breaks, etc. The President asked if there was any discussion about changes or suggestions that would improve this to help it gain support. The Chair noted that the discussion was focused on the problem statement.

MM was against the motion, and noted that this issue would be raised again. He pointed out that there was more support now for eliminating or radically modifying needs assessment. The matter would come back. The biggest concern from talking to people was, will the resources go to actual network operators? The concern was about speculation by non-operators. TM supported the concept as a whole, but believed that the community was not ready. She agreed that there was more support in this area than ever before. She suggested that the AC consider a ‘smaller bite of the pie’. CT agreed with MM, and preferred to have more discussion and guidance from the community. He noted that the AC could abandon the policy at a later time, if needed. TM also had no concern with continuing to discuss the policy.

AP believed that that while the community wanted a change to needs assessment, this would never gain consensus. He asked if this created a distraction from other transfer policies moving forward. KB agreed with AP and stated that this may be keeping others from submitting new and better ideas. JS stated that he was neutral about the entire needs assessment topic and was willing to listen to all sides. This proposal was about transferring resources that were not in use. Why was that a bad idea? Why should this be abandoned? The President stated that as long as the AC made policy and listened to the community, much like markets correct themselves, policy would correct itself over time. He noted that at the lunch table topic on needs assessment, there was discussion regarding how an operating entity could effectively lock up great amounts of resources - ultimately making use of the addresses over time. Could this happen? Yes it could, with existing policy. On the other hand, it was nearly impossible to extrapolate that into pure address speculation since something would have to be legally approvable for financial investment; and, address transfers - contrary to policy - are hard to explain and document as ‘safe’ in contracts. Current policy does affect how the transfer market operates. OD stated that current policy gets a reasonable amount of compliance, and that we should not get rid of policy because it could be worked around. LS indicated that simply adding math to the existing needs assessment results in a policy similar to 2015-7.

The Chair called for a roll call vote. The motion to abandon carried with 13 in favor and 2 against (MM and JS).

The Chair asked OD and RS to craft the explanation of abandonment.

Paul Andersen left the meeting at this time (2:38 p.m. local time).

The Chair indicated that the ARIN Board of Trustees had ratified this policy at their meeting on 19 April 2016.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy

AP stated that there was support for the problem statement; and, that some suggestions for the policy text would like to get more feedback from the community. KB also noted support for the policy, but asked about applicability to 8.3 and 8.4 transfers. KB believed that it should not include 8.4 transfers. OD stated that the policy would allow 8.2 transfers, and that covered most of the scenarios heard so far. He wanted to move it forward as is. CA asked if any of the space had been transferred. The President stated it had not. CA asked what if a request came in now? The President stated that ARIN’s Registration Services Department (RSD) looked for such requests and would bring them to his attention. Since there was an active proposal, he would most likely take the issue to the Board regarding whether suspension was warranted in the meantime. KB stated that word smithing at the microphone would allow for 8.3 transfers. DF asked if there has ever been a transfer of a CI or Exchange Point pool? The President stated that there had not. KB clarified that the proposal applied to reserved pools and that staff and legal should be clear about what this would cover.

11. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business items.

IPv4 Waiting List

DA asked if the waiting list needed a policy change or perhaps just a suggestion. The policy in question was 4.1.8 in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM); which seemed to indicate that it was a policy matter. Should the AC make a policy change? AD stated that if the list exceeded a two-year supply then the list should be closed. OD stated that 4.1.8 states that an organization would be given the chance to be put on the list - this was policy. He suggested a proposal to close the waiting list to new entrants. The President suggested that if the goal was to inform people that when they go on the list they would likely never get resources, then a suggestion would be a faster approach than crafting a policy proposal.

JS pointed out that no one knew how this would work in the future. What do we get by closing the list? He was not in favor of policy to close the list. The Chair noted that staff asked for advice on the waiting list. The AC’s opinion could be to continue what staff was doing, or something else. Should we tell requesters that they may not get address space for a very long time? KB stated that it was ludicrous to be on the list. Staff was pre-approving requests that would not be approved until maybe five or ten years from now.

DH stated that that when companies combine, address space does go back to the registry; it’s possible that the entire waiting list could be fulfilled in a year or so. AP stated that people on the list also make use of brokers for a 24-month supply, rather than the list’s 3-month supply, and that was an issue. The President asked AP to send the suggestion regarding evaluating a 24-month supply to the list. The Chair asked what RSD told people who are on the list. The President replied that analysts tell them it was very unlikely that they would get address space. The organizations on the list were based on the 3-month need.

DF asked for data on this activity. He suggested the AC consider how to tell the community that some day the list will close temporarily because it was full. SL pointed out that, as one of the original authors of the waiting list policy, we understood that the list would get very long, that organizations would go to the transfer market. He believed that the list was working as intended, except for the 3-month versus 24-month issue. He pondered telling organizations it would be a long time, or not telling organizations that based on what DH had stated. Maybe being on the list should somehow make you pre-approved for a transfer - maybe we should work in that direction. DF wanted statistics on how many organizations come to the waiting list and then leave because they made a transfer. CT stated that we should not give people advice that we were unsure about. CT asked if address space would really be returned instead of being transferred.

RS did not agree that address space would come back to the registry. Surplus address space would be transferred. What message do people get when they are put on the list; was it the party line? RJ stated that staff was coached weekly on what to tell customers about the waiting list over the phone and in the ticketing system. Staff pointed customers to the list so they could see what the list looks like. If they qualified, they would go to the bottom of the list. Staff could tell them how many customers have had their requests satisfied. Staff also informs customers about the difference between the waiting list 3-month and transfer 24-month supply. Staff also explains about 4.10 space and critical infrastructure. Customers could then make their own decision. There was no fee to go on the waiting list, so many customers do. Then many organizations followed up with a transfer and were successful. Some customers believe the waiting list was for a transfer.

RS will suggest a graphic to show the length of the list, the rate at which customers were added, the rate at which the free pool was drained, and the rate at which customers came off the list. This would help show how dire this situation was. OD suggested to put the total amount needed to satisfy all the requests at the bottom of the list. The President noted that AC members were not typical requesters. The typical requester, given more information, was likely to look at things more slowly. He observed that it was not always the case that more detailed information was helpful - especially if giving false hope, or overly confusing folks about to jam themselves into a dead end. TM stated that all of the requests on the list could be met with a /12. She suggested that the list be left open, and that staff continue to mention the 3-month waitlist and 24-month transfer distinction.

The Chair reviewed the discussion and believed that there was no need for policy change. The suggestions from RS and AP could be helpful for messaging. OD asked if there should be policy to increase the free pool requests to 24 months? The Chair suggested taking that discussion to the AC’s list.

Fellows Observing at AC Meetings

The Chair opened discussion on CA’s suggestion with regard to letting Fellows attend the AC’s meetings. The President stated that letting guests attend AC meetings was up to the AC. He pointed out that discussions at AC meetings are covered by an NDA, and that the discussions are proprietary and confidential. Any guests would be expected to treat discussions accordingly.

CA stated that the issue that was raised during the PPM was in regard to letting Fellows observe AC meetings to gain better a understanding of what the AC does, etc. KB thought he had heard ‘interns’, and at first thought this was a great idea, but asked “What about the liability of these folks attending our meetings?” He wanted the AC discussions to be free and open, but did not want to the AC to ‘clam up’. DF suggested a formal program where people could apply and be vetted. He suggested that there could be an NDA, and the AC could make use of the NomCom. He pointed out that the AC-elected candidates observe AC meetings. DF believed it seemed a worthy idea, but it needed work.

TM liked the idea of interns. She noted that the AC was already at 15 people and was concerned about logistics, and about the AC being able to speak freely. SL stated that it seemed a little bureaucratic and self-perpetuating. He posed “Are we doing a good service? Are we serving our members?” He suggested that, for more experience, maybe the proposal author should have to shepherd their proposal. He noted that the focus should be on doing good things for the customers and the community, not just the person we are reaching out to, or to serve us. DH noted that today’s observer was not a member of the community; he was staff, just like the ARIN Policy Analyst.

The President advised the AC to think about serving the mission, not the organization. He stated that the Board would take care of the organization. The AC’s task was good administration of the number resources, and the AC should worry about what makes that process run smoothly. The AC member who walks through the door the first day on the AC already knows an enormous amount of background, and that helps them do their job. A good Fellowship program helps make sure that ARIN has more participants that are better educated, increases the pool of potential AC candidates, and this does align well with ARIN’s mission.

JS stated that the caliber of Fellows had been quite high, making them suitable for AC meetings. He would not exclude any from attending an AC meeting. RS stated that the problem of broader participation was larger than the AC and the Board. Getting people to meetings and the PPML with a broad spectrum of backgrounds was hard; if you could help encourage that, do so. CA noted that she was not allowed to attend the WG meeting at RIPE NCC. She suggested it might be beneficial if the AC could assist the Fellows attend other meetings - help them meet people and be more involved?

The Chair reviewed the discussion and noted that there were good ideas for how to expand the idea. He urged the AC to continue the discussion on their list, pointing out that they will need to have clear ideas in order to present them to the ARIN Board.

12. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 3:49 p.m. local time. KB moved to adjourn, seconded by JS. 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.