Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 21 May 2020 [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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.

via Teleconference


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

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela, (MA) Deputy General Counsel
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Sean Hopkins, (SH) Policy Analyst
  • Richard Jimmerson, (COO) Chief Operating Officer
  • Lisa Liedel, (LL) Director - Registration Services
  • Therese Simcox, Scribe
  • John Sweeting, (CCO) Chief Customer Officer

ARIN General Counsel:

  • Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.


  • Kerrie Richards

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:09 p.m. EDT. The presence of a quorum was noted. She acknowledged that KR was on a leave of absence.

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 AD, and seconded by LS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 16 April 2020, as written.”

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

The motion carried with no objections.

The Chair reminded the AC that, after this meeting, all Recommended Draft Policies will be frozen – no changes to text allowed per the Policy Development Process (PDP).

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

Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements. KH stated that a staff and legal review was conducted. The review noted that the policy language did not include removal of pending ARIN waitlist requests of the parent corporation. KH stated that some AC members discussed this and suggested language to add to sections 8.3 and 8.4, but there was also the suggestion to adding language to section 8.6 called ‘Waitlist Restrictions’, and to put the policy there because it would aid in clean-up. KH stated that feedback received from the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) supported the latter suggestion. She believed the text was ready to be moved forward.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2019-1: Clarify Section 4 IPv4 Request Requirements’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. KH asked if an additional staff and legal review would be needed since the change made addresses the last staff and legal review’s recommendation. SH clarified that the PDP only requires that a policy receives a staff and legal review before recommended status. KH requested a staff and legal review. The Chair acknowledged the request, and stated that the motion can move forward for a vote, and that an updated staff and legal review will be conducted before the ARIN 45 meeting takes place.

John Curran left the call at this time.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

RS stated that a staff and legal review was received on May 6 and did not contain any issues. His intent is to leave the text as-is to be presented at ARIN 45.

JP stated that there has not been any further discussion on the PPML and the policy will be presented at ARIN 45.

CW stated that this policy is awaiting presentation at ARIN 45.

OD stated that the policy is ready to be presented at ARIN 45.

9. Draft Policy ARIN 2020-1: Clarify Holding Period for Resources Received via 4.1.8 Waitlist

CT stated, per the last meeting’s discussion, he posted on PPML to foster further discussion leading up to ARIN 45, and there has been only 1 comment since then. His intent is to present it as-is at ARIN 45.

10. Draft Policy ARIN 2020-2: Grandfathering of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16

AM stated that there has not been any discussion in weeks on the PPML with regard to this policy. The policy shepherds will work on the policy presentation for ARIN 45.

11. Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3: IPv6 Nano Allocations

AD stated that this policy has generated good conversations on the PPML. He requested a staff and legal review. Chair acknowledged the request.

12. ARIN-Prop-287: Clarification of Reference to 8.2 in 8.3

AT stated that this proposal is editorial in nature, and therefore would move it forward as such.

It was moved by AT, and seconded by AW, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts “ARIN-Prop-287: Clarification o Reference to 8.2 in 8.3” as an editorial change.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

13. ARIN 45 Virtual Meeting Update

The Chair stated that preparations and practice runs for ARIN 45 are coming together well. She iterated the importance of seamlessness in presenting the policies, therefore presentations are needed by June 10. She asked the Council to please have them in by June 3rd, at the latest, for review and updates. The Chair stated that SH will put the presentations in a master slide deck for the AC. She stressed the importance of planning ahead to cover questions. There will be a show of hands, but beyond that have questions collected ahead of time, as there will not be any ad hoc questions taken.

14. AC WG NRPM Clean Up Update

JP stated that the group focused on completing work in progress and he had posted an email update to the AC. He stated that Sections 1, 2, 4, and 6 received positive review and the group is in agreement on their changes. JP welcomed any input on how large an editorial draft the AC wanted to digest at one time, as there are a lot of changes to review. JP stated that CT has open items he is working on and it is not clear to JP if more are needed.

CT stated that the problem is that it would be artificial to try and cut the review of edits into ‘chunks’ because they are interrelated between the sections being edited. One cannot look at it in thirds or halves. The practicality of what he has seen as he edits, is that there is no choice but to take section 4 as a whole, and it may have spillover to section 2. We can do parts of sections but that is the best we can do. If we stagger it, it will be hard to figure out how the sections and edits relate to each other.

The Chair suggested to bundle the edits in logical bunches and share them on the AC’s list. One large edit will be too much.

OD augmented CT’s comment, stating that the better way to proceed will be to take changes that are editorial and get a first-attempt omnibus editorial change before the community has any further edits, in order to get the editorial changes out of the way in one take. There is a large number of edits across the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). Breaking it down will be laborious, and does not change the meaning of the policy, but they are clarifying. OD had no issue with putting the edits before the community for one pass for clean up, and then look at substantial changes to the meaning of policy, if needed, afterwards in smaller submissions.

CW stated that his concern with an omnibus editorial change is the risk of the reader ‘glazing over’ and not being able to digest all of the edits. He suggested taking the changes by section to the extent possible. OD replied the problem is that there are many edits in one section resulting in the reordering of paragraph numbers and not language, and they get moved to section 2 definitions. The edits ‘tentacle’ rapidly.

CT suggested logically dividing the edits by major sections but in areas where that will not work, bundle them. If we see many comments from people who are unhappy with specific edits, we can carve those out and deal with them later, and release the ones that could easily go through. Instead of all or nothing, do what we can logically in terms of bundling and carve out the problems to the extent we can.

The Chair stated that AD had made a good point via chat, that a lot of changes can go at once if you provide a good group by concept or theme, and have a couple of iterations. The Chair acknowledged that this is not an easy task.

JP stated that the WG would discuss these matters before the AC’s next meeting. The Chair suggested to layer the review with stages 1 through 5, and have lawyers review it before the next meeting as well, if possible. JP acknowledged.

15. AC WG PDP Improvements Update

AP stated that they sent a revised outline of the new structure to the AC and did not received any feedback. Therefore, they filled in one section so that one can get a better feel of how the PDP will look. Next week the WG will meet and go over it, and then distribute that version to the AC.

16. AC WG Policy Experience Report Update

CW stated that the WG holds bi-weekly meetings, and submitted a policy proposal from their meetings this week, and the assignment of policy shepherds has been received. The group has two additional proposals currently being drafted. One addresses the question of renumbering – making exceptions to 8.3 transfers that sanction an entity buying smaller blocks and transferring out a larger block for efficient utilization – and, AW is on point working on section from the experience report.

17. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

  1. Communicating with the Community. The Chair addressed the fact that communication has changed, due to the current virtual world we are experiencing, than in the past. Therefore, the ARIN 45 Virtual Meeting will be held to move policies forward, and help the Council’s workload. The Chair stated that she was interested in the evaluation of the level of participation on the PPML. She presented the idea to consider more ways to communicate with folks, and create the opportunity for conversational environments to happen, as face-to-face conversations will not materialize the way they would during ARIN meeting table topic sessions. She suggested thinking about hosting virtual brown bags, or something similar that are casual environments to discuss policy matters. The Chair stated that if the AC needs such an avenue of communication, she is open to the idea.

  2. Editorial Change Numbering. The Chair stated that there is a new editorial change on the docket and asked the AC to please offer name/numbering suggestions to SH or the AC list.

  3. Next Regularly Scheduled AC Meeting. The Chair stated that the next regularly scheduled AC teleconference in June stands, as per the Standing Rules, on the standard third Thursday at 4 p.m. EDT.

  4. AC Working Group Resources. SH stated that he will circulate a link for the AC to a Working Group resource page containing links for each group’s work in progress. Any members are free to look at them.

  5. AC Member Affiliation Change. CW announced he had an affiliation change, to Twitter, as of this week. The AC congratulated him.

18. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:43 p.m. EDT. JP moved to adjourn, seconded by CW. 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.