Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 September 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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.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)
  • Cathy Aronson (CA)
  • Owen DeLong (OD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • David Huberman (DH)
  • Scott Leibrand (SL)
  • Tina Morris (TM)
  • Milton Mueller (MM)
  • Amy Potter (AP)
  • Leif Sawyer (LS)
  • Rob Seastrom (RS)
  • John Springer (JS)
  • Chris Tacit (CT)


  • Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela (MA), Assoc. General Counsel
  • John Curran (President), President & CEO
  • Nate Davis (ND), COO
  • Sean Hopkins (SHo), Policy Analyst
  • John Sweeting (JSw), Senior Dir., Registration Services

ARIN General Counsel

  • Stephen Ryan, Esq.


  • Andrew Dul


  • Milton Mueller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 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. There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of18 August 2016, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

CA stated this Recommended Draft Policy (RDP) was ready to be presented at ARIN 38 in Dallas.

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

RS stated that in the wake of the AC’s August meeting, a spirited discussion popped up on their mailing list and JS had expressed frustration regarding the morass that the AC found itself in with regard to the various transfer policies on which they were working. RS stated he would like to move this draft policy to RDP status, due to the low opposition it had received.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2015-7: Simplified Requirements for Demonstrated Need for IPv4 Transfers’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. He asked RS if he had an opportunity to review the AC’s mailing list for the comments put forth with regard to treating these draft policies as a set, versus individually. RS stated he had not. The Chair explained that this was related to the conversation, but the motion on the floor was acceptable. He noted that DH and OD had provided beneficial input on the AC’s list.

SL stated that he supported the motion and would also do so for all of the similar draft policies, because he believed it was important to take all of them to the community in a state in which the community could move them forward (by adopting any of them). He believed it was very important, if they were ready, to move the draft policies to RDP status. He noted that as they conflict in language, he believed the community would discuss them at ARIN 38, resulting in a clear idea on which will gain community consensus, and which will not.

The Chair stated he understood SL’s point. He noted that he AC should be moving only those draft policies that were viable and good policies to RDP status.

SL stated that he believed each individual proposal, on its own, was in a good state to move forward. He stated that if they all move forward, the community would decide which policies were viable.

The President stated that the AC should not move a draft policy to RDP status unless it believed the community would accept it, and the policy would be viable into the Last Call period. If only a subset of the policies are moved forward, then after the ARIN meeting, the AC can decide if the policies which the community supported moving forward conflict in any way. The President explained that the AC was not compelled to forward any RDPs into the Last Call period, but could use the community feedback from the meeting to combine and/or refine the policies as necessary. He stated that the AC should make sure whether each policy put in RDP status improves the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). If so, there would be no problem moving them forward to RDP status. He noted that AC should also make sure that they inform the community of its intentions.

AP stated that she believed it was worth looking at the history and perception of community over time. She queried if it was not helpful to look at the failed policies. She believed the AC needed to look at them moving forward, and that it may be worth discussing with community as to what they are trying to solve, not for historical reasons. She was willing to be convinced to be in favor of the motion, but was leaning toward being against it.

OD stated that the AC owed it to community to move the policies to RDP status and, depending on their outcome, the AC would do what was needed. If the community wanted this policy, he would be willing to move it to Last Call period. He did not believe that having a number of policies in RDP status would hurt the AC and prevent it from not being able to move forward with what the community prefers, or limit the community’s choices.

CT stated that this conversation goes back to the need to coordinate. He stated that the AC needed to reconcile the policies – if not now, then after they are moved to RDP status, and discussed and some form of them can make it to Last Call. He believed that the AC would be doing a better service to start a discussion on what the policies are striving to do, and on the community’s preferences. He suggested getting the policy shepherds, or the AC as a whole, to pare down the policies to one or more that meet the PDP criteria. He believed that conflicting RDPs would be very confusing to the community. The policy shepherds have to guide the PDP to take place in some efficient way. He wanted to go to the Public Policy Meeting (PPM) with a more streamlined approach. He noted this may result in an extra AC teleconference, but he believed this approach would best serve the community, as he was concerned the community would be frustrated with overlapping policies.

JS stated that he was in support of motion as it satisfied the three criteria required to move the policy forward - technically sound, enabled fair and impartial number policy, and had support in the community. He stated that the AC cannot dismiss members proposals based on its notions of conceivable happenings. The authors crafted the policies in good faith, and deserve to have them move forward.

SL stated that he also disagreed with CT. He believed it was a bad idea to try to narrow down what the community is to be able move forward as policy. The community needs to be able to look at all of the policies, and provide feedback. The AC cannot constrain the community’s ability to move any of these policies forward.

CT clarified that he was not suggesting an absence of community input. He preferred to use the PPM to gain input from the community to see what was important to them. He believed it was taking a long time to deal with these policies, suggesting consultation on PPML.

The Chair pointed out that the PPML had been used on multiple fronts with regard to these policies. CT stated that his approach would be to deliberately discuss these policies, and point out the conflicts to reconcile the differences as much as possible. CT indicated that trying to get a coherent view on which proposals should go forward, and in what form, would be preferable. He believed that the policies have been discussed in isolation, individually during the whole process. He did not believe the policies should be isolated due to the fact that they focus on the same issue but with conflicts.

DF stated that he supported motion to move this policy, and the others as well, forward. He believed that the AC needed to make it clear to the community that it was probably not realistic for all of the policies to move forward. He wanted to be able to have a discussion about which permutations are viable and which are not; and, to help the community formulate which options they would prefer.

The President pointed out that the AC has the freedom to take two proposals and merge them, even to the detriment of one supported by community, if the AC has participated and encouraged discussion on the PPML. This editing role was specifically assigned to the AC within the PDP. However, it is helpful to know what the community wants. If the AC felt now was the time to merge them, they should do so - if instead it is after the PPM, then do so after the PPM. However, merging proposals has to be based upon comments from the PPML, and the AC’s knowledge. If members of the community are concerned with the results, they can then reintroduce a proposal or petition the original one as desired. If the AC felt that now was the time to merge some of these policies, they could do so and still be compliant with the PDP.

The Chair pointed out that a similar motion was made two months ago and it failed. The AC had not wanted it to move it forward. He asked the AC if anyone that was against it before was not against it now, and to clarify why their view had changed. There were no comments.

DH asked RS if there was evidence of increased community support now, as opposed to two months ago. RS stated that nothing had changed on the PPML, only on the AC’s list. The AC had discussion on the minimal opposition to it, and on a discussion between JS and President. DH stated that he had voted against it and struggled with the relative silence from the list on the issues. He had gotten some clarity on the list and in phone calls. He was stuck in a race condition where 2016-5 will be likely moved to RDP status and 2015-7 was already moved to RDP - which he believed forced his hand with 2016-3. He believed that either all proposals or none should move forward.

The Chair called the vote.

The motion carried with 9 in favor (OD, DF, DH, SL, TM, LS, RS, JS, CT), and three against (DA, CA, AP) via roll call vote.

The Chair asked RS to craft a statement to the community. RS stated he would do so.

AP stated that there was no update at this time. It was ready to be presented at ARIN 38.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-2: Change Timeframes for All IPv4 Requests to 24 Months

TM stated that there were no negative comments received on the policy, and stated her intention to move it forward to RDP status.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2016-2: Change Timeframes for IPv4 Requests to 24 Months’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated that he was in favor of motion. TM stated that positive feedback from the community had been received, and she did not see any issues. DH noted that RDP 2016-4 sets up some rules for new entrants and asked if this policy conflicted with it? TM noted that if this policy was adopted by the Board, there would be edits to existing language. She stated she was comfortable enough with the text, and with both policies moving forward as RDPs, and moving one to the Board for adoption after the PPM.

DF stated that the AC should do its best to make the community understand the issues between the two policies in order to assist the AC in next steps. He stated the AC needs to explain the inconsistencies. He supported the motion.

SL noted that there were two things that created a merge conflict, but believed they could be easily resolved. If both policies pass, it would be easy to strike language to accomplish the same thing. He noted that the community did not need to choose. If they liked both proposals, it would be obvious what needed to be done.

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

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-3: Alternative Simplified Criteria for Justifying Small IPv4 Transfers

DH noted a timing challenge. He stated it was only at last meeting that it was decided to move forward with a clarifying statement regarding the /12 - /16 issue. The text was updated to reflect /16, and submitted to the PPML for comments. He noted that the policy met the criteria to move it forward, but no staff and legal review had yet been conducted. He stated it would be presented at ARIN 38 as is. He asked the Chair for a floor count even though it was not an RDP. The Chair agreed to do so. DH requested the staff and legal review. The Chair asked SHo to begin the process for the review.

The Chair noted to SHo that the text had been updated on AC’s Wiki page, however the public webpage reflected the old language. SHo stated he would update it. The Chair reminded the AC that the freeze on any text changes was Tuesday, 20 September, and that the this draft policy could not be moved forward to RDP.

JS asked why the AC did not have the staff and legal review on this draft policy. DH stated that it was his responsibility, and he got stuck on it because the community did not comment on the policy. He noted the responsibility lay with him, and no one else.

JS stated that this RDP would be presented in Dallas; and, there had been no changes made to the policy text since the AC’s last meeting. An updated staff and legal review was provided by ARIN staff to accommodate the minor textual change between the text that had been submitted for the staff and legal review, and the text that had been voted on. JS stated that he would craft the slides, and would discuss who would present them at the PPM.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy

LS stated that there were some points that needed to be addressed from the staff and legal review, and that it had been edited accordingly. The policy was ready to be moved to RDP, and presented at ARIN 38.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. He noted that he had asked LS to be the primary shepherd, as Kevin Blumberg had resigned from the Council, and had asked DH to be the secondary.

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

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM

CA stated that DF was having technical difficulties. She noted that DF wanted to move this policy to RDP status.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council recommends ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM’ for adoption.”

The Chair called for discussion. CA stated that the policy was ready and that the conformance statement was submitted.

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

12. ARIN-Prop-232: Integration of Community Networks Into Existing ISP Policy

The Chair stated that this policy was recently submitted; and, that typically if the AC had time to wait until the next meeting it would, however the shepherds were comfortable addressing it at this meeting.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-232: Integration of Community Networks Into Existing ISP Policy’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. DH stated that on 09 August he posted an email on the AC’s list regarding the history of a similar proposal that was on the docket for over 3 years. Since then, that policy had not been used. He believed it was a fairly touchy topic, and was not in favor of adding it to the AC’s docket.

OD pointed out that the criteria for whether the AC accepted it onto the docket was not optional if there was a well-defined problem statement. He stated it was not appropriate to do so otherwise. He was not in support of this policy, but noted that the obligation of the AC having a proposal with a well formed problem statement was to add the policy to the docket, and then do what it needed to do.

JS agreed with OD. He stated that there were exactly two valid reasons for voting against moving a proposal to draft policy status – either a proposal has an unclear problem statement, or a proposal is not in scope. JS stated he was in support of the motion.

The Chair stated for clarification that the AC, as part of PDP, had the ability to close the work queue if it was too full. There were currently many proposals on the docket, but after the ARIN 38 PPM, it would be clearing up. He was in favor of adding this one to the docket.

The Chair called the vote.

The motion failed with 6 in favor (DA, OD, SL, RS, JS, CT) and 6 against (CA, DF, DH, TM, AP, LS), via roll call vote.

The motion needed 8 in favor in order to move forward.

CA stated she believed that if someone genuinely had a community network she would be in support of it, but she did not believe that anyone had one, noting she could be mistaken. She suggested the AC post it to the PPML and see if it would help anyone. She noted the other policy was never used.

The Chair stated that it would remain a proposal and not a draft policy. To CA’s point, he noted the AC may want to work with the shepherds to decide on how to progress.

JS noted it was an odd situation. He stated that half the AC believed there was reason to vote against the motion. He wanted to get an idea of whether the proposal was unclear or not in scope.

DF stated, to that point, he would be happy to entertain a motion at the next AC meeting; and, he would vote in favor at that time. The Chair asked him why he would wait to do so. DF stated that currently the AC had enough on its docket, and hopefully its workload would be lessened after the PPM.

OD stated that, as he understood the PDP, this text would remain as a proposal until the AC accepted onto its docket. The AC cannot dispose of it or remand it back to the author unless it was out of scope or it had an insufficient problem statement - at this stage. The Chair confirmed OD was correct. OD was at a loss to understand the decision of the AC. He stated he would need help with the statement of explaining it to the community.

DH stated that he disagreed with the Chair with regard to the size of docket after the PPM. He believed if the AC gained progress after ARIN 38, it would be fine. He believed the proposal was submitted as busy work, and reiterated that no one had used the proposal already in existence on the same subject.

The President stated that if the AC saw something wrong with a problem statement, they should remand it to the author. Once accepted, they keep it as a draft policy. The community can always petition to advance something not being worked, even if the AC did not want to work on it. The evaluation of policies had to happen in a timely manner. It is important to say if a proposal is not in scope, or else put it on the docket. The AC could then abandon a draft policy, or not work on it, as it wishes.

The President further stated that it was at the discretion of the AC whether or not to work on draft policies. The AC did not have to assign shepherds to draft policies or work on them. However, the AC cannot prevent proper policy proposals from being put on the docket and moving them to draft policies, as they owe the community a timely review. The AC could withhold from assigning shepherds to proposals, and never put them on an AC meeting agenda for discussion, due to workload concerns.

CA stated that she agreed with DH. There were many proposals on the AC’s docket, and the AC spent too long on the other proposal that was similar to this one.

The Chair stated as an historical point, that the AC has had dockets with 20 or more items on it. It was not an enjoyable or simple situation but the AC has been much busier than it is at the current time.

DF pointed out that this proposal was less than two weeks old. The AC was not infringing on timeliness if it waited to address it at the next AC meeting. If not accepted at the next meeting, the AC would owe the community a better explanation of what was going on.

OD stated that he expected to see a motion next month – he could live with that timeframe. He stated he would have trouble stating that the AC was too busy. He would abide by the decision of the AC at this time, and with moving forward next month, although he did not see the advantage of waiting.

13. Any Other Business

The President asked the AC if they would like a short summary of the IANA Transition. The AC stated they would like an update. The Chair stated he would add it to this agenda item.

  • Review Upcoming Public Policy Meeting (PPM). The Chair reminded the AC about registering and reaching out to staff for travel. He asked AP if she finished the chart to explain the different transfer proposals. She stated that it was almost done and that she would send it to the AC next week. The Chair stated he would work the chart into the Chair’s On the Docket Report at ARIN 38. He would also be sending out Table Topics. He reiterated that proposals and policies will enter into text freeze mode next Tuesday leading up to ARIN 38.
  • Update on Vice Chair Position. The Chair stated that upon Kevin Blumberg resignation as an AC member, the Vice Chair position became vacant. He had asked TM to fill the position and he was happy to report that TM had accepted.
  • IANA Transition Summary. The President provided an update on the status of the IANA functions transition to the AC for their information.

14. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:41 p.m. EDT. CA moved to adjourn, seconded by CT. 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.