Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 December 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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.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)
  • Tina Morris, Vice Chair (TM)
  • Cathy Aronson (CA)
  • Owen DeLong (OD)
  • Andrew Dul (AD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • David Huberman (DH)
  • Scott Leibrand (SL)
  • 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, (SH) Policy Analyst
  • John Sweeting (JSw), Senior Dir., Registration Services

Observers (2017 AC members-elect)

  • Alyssa Moore (AM)
  • Joe Provo (JP)
  • Alison Wood (AW)
  • Chris Woodfield (CW)


  • Cathy Aronson, Owen Delong

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. EST. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed everyone to the last AC teleconferencel of 2016.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. The Chair added an item regarding the AC’s first face-to-face meeting of 2017, and the AC Chair election process to Any Other Business.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

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

The Chair called for comments or objections. There were none.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Policies under Consideration for Ratification by the ARIN Board

The Chair informed the Council that, per their recommendation at their meeting on 17 November 2016, the following recommended draft policies will be under consideration for ratification by the ARIN Board during the Board’s next meeting on 19 December 2016.

  • Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2015-2: Modify 8.4 (Inter-RIR Transfers to Specified Recipients).
  • Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-1: Reserved Pool Transfer Policy.
  • Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-2: Change Timeframes for IPv4 Requests to 24 Months.
  • Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-4: Transfers for New Entrants.
  • Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-5: Post-IPv4-Free-Pool-Depletion Transfer Policy.
  • Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2016-6: Eliminate HD-Ratio from NRPM.

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

DH stated that there were no actions at this time. He noted that after the outcome of the polices that have been recommended for Board ratification, the Proposal Shepherds will take the necessary next steps.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2016-7: Integration of Community Networks into Existing ISP Policy

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons Draft Policy ARIN-2016-7: Integration of Community Networks into Existing ISP Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated that he believed this draft policy had been over taken by events and that the problem statement was no longer relevant given the adoption of Recommended Draft Policy 2016-6. He stated he would like to see how things go with the existing policy, and address any changes to it if they arise.

CT asked if there was any reason to abandon 2016-7 at this time. OD believed there was no point in waiting. He pointed out that in policy 2016-3 items could be extracted to form other proposals, but in 2016-7 he did not believe there was anything left to use.

JS stated that he would not mind waiting to see the outcome of the ratifications, but would not interfere with the vote to abandon this draft policy.

The Chair noted that if this was the first time the AC were discussing this issue, it would be one thing, but as a third motion of abandonment, at this point there is an ‘optics issue’. He noted that the petition process accounted for it, but he preferred to see the AC do its job rather than rely on petitions.

DF stated that he was not opposed to the motion but was concerned that there had been no discussion on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) and asked if OD would be amenable to sending email of his intent to the community to glean any comments. DF stated he would then be more comfortable abandoning the proposal if necessary.

RS asked OD, as they were the policy shepherds, if he had any success with reaching out to the authors to see if they agree with abandoning the draft policy. RS agreed with OD on the motion, but he shared the Chair’s concern with regard to optics. He stated that if the AC had the authors agreement, it would make a strong case for abandonment. He asked OD if he would be amenable to that suggestion. OD stated he had not had a chance to reach out to authors. RS respectfully requested him to ask the authors. OD stated that if the motion failed, he would do so, and also post a message to the PPML for community input.

The motion to abandon failed via roll call with 8 against (DA, AD, DF, TM, MM, LS, RS, CT) and 5 in favor (CA, OD, DH, SL, JS). AP was not yet in attendance on the teleconference to vote.

The Chair tasked the policy shepherds to post a message to the PPML, and noted that this draft policy would be addressed in January at the AC’s next meeting.

7. ARIN-Prop-233: Removal of Indirect POC Validation Requirement

CT stated that this proposal was within scope and problem statement and text were both clear.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-233: Removal of Indirect POC Requirement’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with one abstention (OD) via roll call.

AP joined the teleconference at this time (4:20 p.m. EST).

8. ARIN-Prop-234: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers

JS stated that he intended to make a motion to advance this proposal to a draft policy, but in reviewing it before the meeting, he noted problems. He noted that RS had spoken of two changes made to a paragraph that was no longer present in the recent version. He noted the importance of having the same version available to work on.

RS apologized, and noted he also followed up on the AC’s list about the changes. He explained that this proposal topic had been in existence since late 2015 and it was shelved due to other proposals in early 2016. His edits were not synced with the current reality of the subject matter. He asked JS to please change any technical items he saw that needed updating. RS believed that he would overlook them due to his familiarity with the proposal and JS would be looking at the proposal with a fresh view. JS agreed to do so.

JS noted confusion on harmonizing nomenclatures between NRPM Section 8.3 New Entity and something else, where new entity only appears in NRPM once - he was unsure what the harmonization was about. RS explained it was a ‘clean up’ that he had crafted but, if it no longer applied, JS should feel free to remove the item. RS stated that the main point is not having to re-justify address space that has been justified previously. Real accuracy within the Whois database is a higher function.

The Chair stated that based on JS’ evaluation of the text, is the problem statement clear and is the intent clear enough that it is just an editorial matter, or did the proposal need to be remanded for further clarity? JS asked if justification was necessary in the text? RS replied that he ‘assumed’ that entities would already have space, but if JS could state that they have justified the space, that would be correct.

JS stated that, lastly, interpretation is the real problem. The current text is written that it be kept in the defunct acquirer’s name, and this proposal’s intent is to change that. RS confirmed that that was correct - the old, defunct information needs to be removed and have current information inserted.

JS stated that given this discussion, if the other AC members were happy with him editing the proposal as discussed, he would now make a motion to advance it to a draft policy.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-234: Streamline Merger & Acquisition Transfers’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated that he would rather see the problem statement cleaned up before advancing this proposal. He pointed out that the one requirement is a clear and in scope problem statement, and the proposal as written did not currently meet that requirement. He was not in favor of the motion.

MM believed that, from this discussion, the problem statement was clear and the intent of drafter was clear. He believed any ambiguities were editorial in nature and could be clarified.

DH noted that the sense is that big companies were afraid that if they go to ARIN they have to re-justify space they have and already use. He praised JS for the edits he proposed, and believed they could be made during the process. It stated this was a very real problem for companies.

The Chair asked if JS if he believed that the problem statement was clear. JS replied that he did.

The motion carried with 13 in favor (DA, CA, AD, DF, DH, SL,TM, MM, AP, JS, LS, RS, CT) and one against (OD), via roll call.

9. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

AC Face-to-Face Meeting

The Chair reminded the AC that would be the AC’s first face-to-face meeting of 2017, at the Grand Hyatt in Seattle. He reminded the Council to please arrange travel with staff.

AC Chair Election/Selection

The Chair announced that on January 3rd 2017, nominations will open for a Chair for 2017. Nominations will close on the January 5th. In the event that only one person is selected, or accepts position, voting will be considered complete, per the standing rules. If there is more than one person nominated, then it will be announced on January 6th, and voting will then open on that day and close on January 9th. The new Chair will be announced on January 9th.

DH objected to the process and stated that he believed the AC should select and discuss a Chair at the AC’s face-to-face meeting.

The Chair called for any further comments. With regard to the face-to-face meeting item, DF stated that he planned on attending in-person, but a medical procedure may keep him from doing so. He noted that he also intended on serving his 2017 term, but that there was a possibility of his resignation. The Chair understood and stated that if DF desired, he could always participate remotely. DF thanked the Chair.

The Chair called for any further comments.

DH stated that he intended on circulating an informal invitation to get together for AC members who were available the evening prior to the AC meeting. The AC was amenable to the idea.

AD stated that he would like to recognize the AC members who were no longer going to be on the Council, and to thank them for their time. He stated it was a pleasure working with them over the years.

The Chair noted that outgoing members SL and MM had put in many hours of work for the AC, and acknowledged that CA had put in more than everyone. It was noted that CA had been a member of the AC from its inception. CA stated that she was the first ’elected’ member of the AC and began 6 months after the AC was formed, the other founding members were all appointed.

JS moved:

“The Advisory Council expresses their extreme appreciation of all of their years of service.”

The motion was seconded by AD.

SL stated that the AC meeting will be held in his home town. He would be stopping by to say hello, and would like to plan an outing to a museum, if possible. The AC was amenable to the idea.

10. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:44 p.m. EST. CA moved to adjourn, seconded by SL. 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.