Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 10 April 2019 [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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.

Bridgetown, Barbados


  • Tina Morris, Chair (TM)
  • Leif Sawyer, Vice Chair (LS)
  • Owen DeLong (OD)
  • Andrew Dul (AD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • Kat Hunter (KH)
  • Alyssa Moore (AM)
  • Amy Potter (AP)
  • Joe Provo (JP)
  • Kerrie Richards (KR)
  • Rob Seastrom (RS)
  • Chris Tacit (CT)
  • Alicia Trotman (AT)
  • Alison Wood (AW)
  • Chris Woodfield (CW)


  • Susan Hamlin

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela, Associate General Counsel
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Sean Hopkins (SH), Policy Analyst (via teleconference)
  • Richard Jimmerson (RJ), COO
  • John Sweeting, (JS) Sr. Director, Registration Services

ARIN General Counsel

  • Stephen Ryan, Esq.

Observers from the ARIN Board of Trustees

  • Dan Alexander (DA)
  • Paul Andersen (PA), Board Chair

Guest Observer

  • Tony Smith, Director of Communications, APNIC

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 11:47 a.m. AST. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed all to the meeting, and acknowledged guest observer Tony Smith, APNIC’s Director of Communications.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments on the Agenda. CT asked if there would be discussion of new proposals that had recently been submitted. The Chair stated that they would be briefly mentioned under Any Other Business. OD requested that there be discussion of potentially merging ARIN policies 2019-2 and 2019-6. AM requested to have the content of the June NANOG presentation discussed under Any Other Business. The Chair agreed to the discussion and noted two additional items to add to Any Other Business: ARIN AC letters of support, and new proposals.

The Chair called for a brief recess at 11:51 a.m. AST, and resumed the meeting at 11:55 a.m. AST.

The Chair asked if any AC members had changes to employment to disclose. KR informed the AC that her new position is part of a restructuring and reincorporation within her organization to obtain charitable status from her employer.

The Chair asked OD to update his biography to include the organizations for whom he is consulting. OD agreed to do so. The President stated that the ARIN community needs to be aware of what AC members are involved in.

CW noted that he had resigned from the NANOG Program Committee.

RS stated that he is currently unaffiliated.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 21 March 2019, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

CT stated that most of the questions during ARIN 43 seemed to disappear with greater understanding of the amount of consultation that had been undertaken with respect to the revised wording.

The Chair read the floor count (131 in the room with 41 in favor of and one against). The Chair called for any comments or concerns. DF stated that while there was one comment on the list against the policy, he did not hear any objections at the microphone during ARIN 43 that needed to be addressed.

CT said he was aware of some objections with the earlier text, but he has not heard of any objections to the new text provided since January.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2017-12: POC Notification and Validation Upon Reassignment or Reallocation’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no further comments.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

The Chair called for a recess at 11:57 a.m. AST. The Chair resumed the meeting at 12:31 p.m. AST.

KR noted that this was her first policy and it was presented at three ARIN Public Policy Meetings (41, 42, & 43). She noted that a staff and legal review was conducted in October 2018, and that the policy text has been posted on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) for over a year. The text has received a fair amount of commentary. She stated her desire to move the policy to Last Call.

The Chair read the floor count (108 in the room with 40 in favor of and none against). She asked KR if there was any negative feedback. KR replied that comments were mostly procedural in nature.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2018-2: Clarification to ISP Initial Allocation’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. KR noted that there were no comments specifically for or against the policy.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

6. ARIN-2018-5: Disallow Third-Party Organization Record Creation

AD stated that this policy was presented for the first time at this meeting. He noted that there were a number of folks that were very much in favor, and that there were no substantive comments that indicated any changes.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2018-5: Disallow Third-Party Organization Record Creation’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. AD asked if the President believed that this policy, much like the POC validation policy, had sufficient feedback. The President responded that the accompanying staff and legal review did not point out any major concerns.

AD believed that implementing this policy and the POC validation policy at the same time will be beneficial as only one change for large organizations - rather than a cycle of changes that will cause additional work.

JS noted that recently ARIN had a complaint from a large organization where a small organization’s details had been reassigned to a large organization. ARIN allows other people to create Org IDs, and this policy will take care of that issue.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2018-6: Clarify Reassignment Requirements in

AM noted there was a fair amount of discussion on this policy. She noted that some believed the policy was an operational change. She believed the policy was fine as written, minus any reference to SWIP. She asked for the AC’s thoughts.

JP did not believe the text was consistent. He suggested that the AC redefine Section 3.2. AD suggested specifying “approved directory service”, as there was a good discussion point in the room with regard to when an ISP is permitted to create a detailed reassignment. AD suggested that perhaps updated language is needed, but he was uncertain if there was consensus to do so. He did not have any initial thoughts on what those updates would entail.

OD suggested to expand the scope of the policy to include SWIP, and all different directory services, and then eventually go through the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) and cleanup all references elsewhere so that they are only referenced in Section 3.2. He believed that the wording could be improved. JP noted three occurrences of SWIP in NRPM.

AW noted that one community member was against this policy, but after an explanation was provided, the member changed his mind.

The President pointed out the importance of why the AC presents the draft policies at ARIN Meetings. It is for community members in the room to gain an understanding through these presentations. It is always beneficial to walk through the policies for those members in the room with regard to improving support.

OD suggested a potential long-term work item to take on: specifically changing the directory service language throughout, and consolidating it.

AM stated that she would incorporate the feedback for the AC’s review.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements

KH stated that the PPML reflected positive feedback leading up to the ARIN meeting. She noted that multiple people at the microphone during ARIN 43 had suggested a longer hold time. Therefore, she suggested to change the language to 36 months and update it from there.

AW agreed with extending the time. CW asked if there was talk of extending the three-month waiting period? KH did not believe there was. CW noted that three months may be a good idea, given how long it takes to get to the front of the list.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size Restriction

The Chair stated that this item would be discussed after item 11.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-3: Update 4.10 – IPv6 Deployment Block

AT stated that up until this meeting, there was one comment on the PPML, and at the ARIN meeting there were many comments, such as suggestions for changing the minimum block to a /22; and, raising the 80% requirement. It was noted also that there are use cases for a /28 that should be considered. AT asked the AC their thoughts on keeping the text as written.

OD believed that a /22 would be too small, most organizations are not receiving more than a /24, therefore, he did not see an issue.

DF believed that a /21 seemed reasonable, however, allocating a /28 to someone would be a disservice.

AD agreed with DF that a /21 was a good size, and that he did not take issue with a /22, however he did not believe the draft policy needed to be revised. He stated that the updated policy fits the need to address MDN organization requirements, and that the ARIN staff at ARIN 43 provided some statistics on MDN which also support the /21 size. AD suggested that unless the AC wants to add language with regard to specifically allowing MDN support, he did not believe the text should be revised. He suggested that it seemed like a rate limit should be in place, and pointed out that the current text has a /24 every six months rate limit.

AT stated that she would keep the policy text as-written, and would try to foster further discussion on the PPML.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-4: Allow Inter-Regional IPv6 Resource Transfers

DF stated that there was no clear consensus to remove this policy at this time. He hoped that some of the new proposals that came in would overtake this policy and, in a few months, it would be appropriate to abandon this policy.

The Chair read the floor count (110 in the room, with 7 in favor, and 10 against). She noted this was not conclusive. DF stated that he would keep the draft policy going.

The Chair stated that item 9 would be discussed at this time.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-2: Waiting List Block Size Restriction

AM noted that there was general support, with some back and forth, but that the text had gained good consensus.

OD agreed, stating that some wanted to see a /21, but no one else said they were specifically against a /21. He was in support, as either discourages fraud. OD stated that he would like to see this policy combined with 2019-6 on longer hold times. He noted that it is understood that both policies can go forward separately until there is a clear consensus; but, the community may oppose one of the two in ways that they might not if the AC combined the two draft policies. OD further noted that a staff and legal review would be needed.

The President stated reminded the AC to make sure that the policy text is in line with other recommended draft policies once this has been moved to Recommended Draft Policy status so that there are no conflicting policies. Also, the President noted that once ARIN restarts the waitlist queue, staff needs to know how to transition those already in the queue.

The Chair stated the AC should move through the other agenda items, and discuss staff and legal reviews afterward. ARIN staff and legal folks need to understand that the AC is considering combining these two policies.

OD acknowledged that the policies would have to be combined as draft policies, before the AC can move it to recommended draft policy status.

The Chair stated that item 13 would be discussed at this time.

12. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-5: Validation of Abuse-Mailbox

To be discussed.

13. Draft Policy ARIN-2019-6: Longer Hold Time Requirements for 4.1.8 Recipients.

RS stated that because of the late arrival of this proposal, no staff and legal review had been made. He noted that this policy did have a fair amount of support.

The Chair called for any further comments. AD asked if the AC could write a statement to the Board with what they want the policy response to be. The President replied the AC could do so, and that this policy could become a recommended draft policy at that time. RS asked if doing so before October would be possible. The President stated that it was possible.

CT stated that he was in favor of a longer waiting period of 60 months. He stated that the wording was such that one could be prohibited from transfers of any kind, and that he had updated language.

CW cautioned against restricting the hold time extension to this type of particular transfer. This could result in a scenario where the recipient of a block could no longer sell that particular block, but could sell others.

OD agreed, stated that the text should restrict all space held by that organization.

AD stated that this gaming scenario is something the AC needs to discuss with the community. It is not clear at this time what the community wants.

AP stated that Section 8.3 does prevent an organization from transferring space for 12 months.

The President stated that there is a mechanism in place. Consider that while there are gaming scenarios, if mandatory holding times are transitory it is just a waiting game. If the intent is to give organizations space that would never be transferred again, it needs to be stated. If it is just a time delay, people who wish to do so are still likely to invest now and harvest later.

AP noted that if it is waiting for a year or two, that might not be good enough. Five years would be better, but permanent holds might cause problems for organizations that go out of business.

CT agreed that the AC should be careful and address it specifically with the fraud concern in mind. If the text needs to change and recalibrate that is fine; but, for now five years might be the right timeframe, and it would prevent overreaching.

OD stated that 4.1.8 space comes with annual fees, which means ‘out of business’ organizations would have that space revoked regardless.

CT stated that the AC should find a solution that meets the principles quickly, perfect or not. It’s possible, based on the feedback here, that we can craft a community-supported solution quickly. Let us not keep going just to be comprehensive. If we recommend it to the Board, it will be discussed again at the next meeting.

JS stated that ARIN hears from the people waiting to get a /23 or /24, and say that they need it or else they will go out of business. There are people that are depending on ARIN and the AC to do the right thing, so that ARIN can continue to provide them with address space. JS also noted that ARIN has the first quarter distribution information, before suspensions. The second quarter will be done in June.

The President agreed with CT’s point. He stated that when the AC sends the Board a reply to the suspension, the Board will move on very quickly.

Paul Andersen, ARIN Board Chair, arrived to the meeting at this time (1:13 p.m. AST).

JP asked if the AC should send an action to the Board, must the AC merge the policy texts? The President replied that the AC should make a recommendation to the Board what to do in response to the suspension, everything else would be normal policy changes.

DF stated that the AC should quickly resolve this discussion, and take this item into a workshop before the AC departs from this meeting, in order to craft a response to make at the next AC meeting, and then forward it to the Board.

The Chair agreed with DF with regard to crafting a response for the Board if the AC believed it was close enough to act. She called for a working group to handle the response to the Board. DF, RS, CT and AD volunteered to be in a working group.

The Chair stated that the discussion of this policy was now closed; and that the AC would now discuss merging policies, and the logistics of policy text but not wordsmith them.

RS stated that the folks who mentioned merging the policies were in support of both. As far as the hold-down mechanism, it is included on purpose. Our guidance to the Board should not be rushed, the AC should consider the proposals on their own merit, and send them to the Board independently. He believed that merging the policies did not seem to solve a problem.

CT asked if the Board would be able to meet on action, if the AC were to wait until May. The Board Chair stated that the AC should take its time, be clear, and do not adjust anything based on meeting a deadline, and to let the Board worry about the timing.

JP believed that merging the policies was not critical, but getting one clear answer to the Board was. He was not in favor of merging, as he believed that people will object to it based solely on the timeline.

OD stated that he was not concerned with merging, but if it was done outside the normal PDP, merging would be irrelevant. He proposed that the AC hold the workshop in a way where if there is a decisive outcome, the AC has the ability to make a motion, and send the text to the Board before concluding this meeting. To DF’s point, OD suggested suspending the meeting and enter a workshop for a recommendation to the Board, and then reconvene.

The Chair replied that she did not believe that the AC would reach a conclusion today.

AD agreed and requested that the AC have an item on their agenda for their next meeting and that is to craft a response to suspension of the wait-list policy.

CT stated this process exists for a reason. We are in the fortunate position of having this meeting where we were able to get a degree of consensus for agreement of these two elements in the two policies. CT recommended that the AC enters into a workshop and make something that works well to solve the problem on an interim basis, that does not go against the community’s interest.

The Chair called for a 15-minute recess at this time (1:35 p.m. AST). The Chair called the meeting to order 1:50 p.m. AST.

The Chair stated that item 12 would be discussed at this time.

12. ARIN-2019-5: Validation of Abuse-Mailbox

OD stated that this policy is a no-opt for this community, and that he was working with author to try to turn ‘test’ into policy. He expects further work with the author at this time, but is not restricted to the author’s wishes. The Chair called for any comments. There were none. She stated that she looked forward to the next iteration of text.

The Chair resumed the remaining agenda items in order.

14. ARIN-2019-7: Elimination of the Waiting List

AM stated that she believed the AC needs to have more discussion on this item, as the comments on the PPML show both opposition and some in favor. She was not in favor of advancing this policy to the Board to help the suspension. She wanted to keep working on it. AP stated she would like to have a staff and legal review on the policy.

OD stated that he was vehemently opposed to this policy. He did not see the opposition going away, nor it gaining consensus at any point. He asked the AC if it wanted to keep working on it. He believed the sooner the AC abandoned it, the better.

CT believed that this policy would result in a very different view of Internet number resources. This is also not a proper response to suspension of issuance. If you are going to have funds generated, the rationale should come beforehand.

AT stated that she was not in favor. Although we are working on it, ARIN monetizing space did not sit well with her.

CW pointed out that one issue is that the community would want to define what ARIN does with the money, and that is not in the scope of the PDP. If the Board gave assurance to the community that the money would go to a specific purpose, that may help.

The President stated that if the AC requests a staff and legal review, the likely outcome will be a review statement that notes that any funds would go toward purposes that are compliant with ARIN’s mission.

AP believed that further discussion was pointless unless a staff and legal review was conducted to ascertain if this policy could be adopted. RS agreed and requested a staff and legal review be done.

AM stated that even if ARIN will use the funds appropriately, it did not change her mind. She stated she was more concerned with the legality of the implementation.

OD stated that he was more concerned with optics, as the funds obtained could be large.

CT stated that if this could move forward, he believed the community would need the purpose prior to approving the policy.

The Chair stated that she would send the request for a staff and legal review formally through an e-mail.

15. ARIN-Edit-2019-1: Remove IPv4 Reference in NRPM Section 6.10.1

AM stated that there was a comment on the PPML suggesting using the less ambiguous terminology “no longer than a /48,” referring to prefix length, rather than “no smaller than a /48,” but she noted that this language was not universal in the NRPM yet. DF stated that the universal alignment is something that could be done later.

CW pointed out that it may be helpful to adjust the numbering scheme for editorial changes so that they will not be confused with the numbering scheme for draft policies. The Chair requested CW send an e-mail to SH on that point.

16. ARIN-Prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation

It was noted that, historically, ARIN has stayed out of how space is routed; and, as it is believed that this proposal is out of scope as it makes statements about operational practices, and is in violation of policy (Registration Services Agreement). The author of the proposal referenced 4.2. The policy must support the unique registration of resources. The author states that it refers to routing.

CW stated that he believed this proposal to be out of scope as it declares an operational practice to be a violation of policy. The author states that the PDP states that there should be an intent in the proposal to prevent duplicate use of Internet number resources, and that it should include via routing practices.

DF stated that he was torn as to whether or not it is in scope, but believed that it is not. He stated that it is probably on a line, and the AC is here to decide on those things that are on a line.

CW noted that the RIPE NCC’s abuse working group is discussing something similar. AP stated that she believed LACNIC is discussing this as well.

CW stated that he believed that the proposal intends to stop resources from being revoked for BGP hijacking being labeled as RSA violations, by saying specifically that it is just a policy violation.

AM asked what would the ARIN community do with this? CW responded that he believed the ARIN community would most likely be very curious about the implementation and procedure, specifically the scope of how much enforcement ARIN could take on. The proposal would likely end up with ‘few teeth’.

DF stated that it was an interesting experiment. He did not support the proposal, but supported remanding it to the author. If it were remanded he could see it being petitioned – then a staff and legal review would likely follow.

CT agreed that the proposal was not registry policy, and it is out of scope.

AM stated that there are other policies with ‘few teeth’.

OD stated that if it is considered what the practical implication of approving this proposal would be – what action would ARIN take that meaningfully addresses the problem raised? I don’t believe it is ARIN’s problem, as it does not impact running the registry. OD agreed that the text was out of scope.

The President stated that staff has an enormous amount of faith in the AC’s determination of whether a proposal is in scope or not. If the AC does not foresee how a proposal affects the management of the registry, then it can reject the proposal as out of scope, no one will object - except maybe the author. If a petition is requested, it will go to the Board – and if that happens, the Board can give it back to the AC with clearer guidance, if necessary. The President suggested the AC work with the author to create a good policy statement, if the AC wants to work on it – but if the AC does not think it is in scope, they should not hesitate to reject it.

JP believed that the text was out of scope. Some other RIR’s operate more closely with their operational community. AW asked if any of the other RIRS have worked on this matter. CW stated it was being discussed in the RIPE anti-abuse working group and the members of that mailing list have some support for it. AP stated that at the LACNIC meeting has discussed it and they dismissed it as out of scope.

CW noted that his understanding of the author’s intention is to declare that any organization that willingly highjacks space is in violation of their RSA with ARIN and could risk having any legitimate resources from ARIN revoked.

LS read the text “…intentional highjacking is a violation of the service agreement.”

DF stated that he read through RIPE’s working group list and found there was both significant support and some significant objection that the working group has not yet addressed. He was uncertain that it would reach consensus.

CW asked a procedural question to the AC: are there more in favor of accepting as a draft, or more in favor of accepting to have a vote to remand?

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council rejects “ARIN-Prop-266: BGP Hijacking is an ARIN Policy Violation”, as out of scope.”

The Chair called for discussion. AP stated that she believed that the author was using ARIN to solve their problem.

LS stated that in the ARIN region, an RIR is not a routing registry, therefore it is not in scope.

AW asked if there were a way to work with the author to make it in scope? The Chair responded that would be the policy shepherd’s prerogative.

CW asked can ARIN do anything to prevent hijacking? He would not say no, but he did not have any confidence in working this with author. CW stated he would be happy to collaborate on alternative solutions. CW stated that he believes there is a workable problem statement, but the solutions are not workable.

DF stated that he read the problem statement. He would have to have rose-colored glasses to read it as ‘in scope’.

AP - The clarity of the problem statement is still subject to scope.

The motion to reject the proposal carried with 13 in favor, one against (AM), and one abstention (AW).

17. Any Other Business

60-Day Outstanding Expense Report Submission Summary

(Exhibit A)

DF stated he would submit the expense report. The President reminded him that, at this point, he needed to draft a letter to the President requesting reimbursement.

New Proposals Received

The Chair stated that six new proposals were received this week. One has been merged already. She stated that she will be assigning proposal shepherds and will work with the Vice Chair to get the assignments to the AC next week.

Letters of Support for AC

The Chair stated that she and the COO have been discussing letters of support with regard to the work that AC members do for ARIN. The COO explained that in the past, ARIN created letters that would be sent to the employer of any AC member that requested a letter, describing the value of the work that the member provides for ARIN. He stated that ARIN is looking to do this again, if an AC member would like a letter; and we would need the name and mailing address of the member’s employer. A letter would be circulated in the next couple of weeks, signed by the President and CEO. The COO stated that if an AC member ends up having a change of employer, or a new boss, they could reach out mid-year, and a new letter can be generated and sent. The COO stated that this is an opt-in only offer, and ARIN will not send a letter unless an AC member requests one.


The Chair stated that AM has agreed to present at the next NANOG meeting in June. AM stated that she had spoken with Edward from NANOG, and that his suggestion was to make the presentation purely operational, how it impacts the audience, and remove policy language. She asked that, with the AC’s current docket, what should be incorporated?

AD suggested ORG ID and POC validation language changes, with implementation timeframes, and perhaps focusing on how operational practices may change, not policy language, including what may not work anymore for templates.

DF suggested perhaps including a flowchart of how POCs go into the registry now, versus how they will in the future. Also, obtain operator input on inter-RIR transfers, if possible.

The Chair stated that if any AC members have operational roles, please review the AC docket and provide input to AM.

AM asked if it was worthwhile to provide an update on waitlist suspension. The Chair answered affirmatively.


The Chair acknowledged the previous request to hold a workshop. The President stated that when the AC sends a response to the Board, they will need a vote on that action - which can be the vote of the working group or online.

18. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 2:46 p.m. AST. DF moved to adjourn, seconded by RS. 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.