Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 December 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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.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)
  • Andrew Dul (AD)
  • Kat Hunter (KH)
  • Anita Nikolich (AN)
  • Amy Potter (AP)
  • Joe Provo (JP)
  • Kerrie Richards (KR)
  • 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

ARIN General Counsel:

  • Stephen M. Ryan, Esq.


  • Gary Giesen, 2021 Appointed AC Member
  • Matthew Wilder, 2021 AC Member-Elect


  • Alyssa Moore
  • Owen DeLong

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 PM ET. The presence of a quorum was noted. She welcomed the 2021 observers to the call. The Chair stated that observers cannot vote, but can ask procedural questions, and that a new AC member orientation session with staff will be conducted before the new year.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair called for any comments on the agenda. There were no comments.

3. Approval of the Minutes

(Exhibit A)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 19 November 2020, as written.”

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

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Status of Policies for Board Adoption

The COO stated that, at their meeting on 16 December 2020, the ARIN Board of Trustees ratified the following policies. With regard to the AC’s note to the Board pertaining to Recommended Draft Policy 2020-3, the Board acknowledges the AC’s desire for the Board to be aware of a pending ARIN Consultation & Suggestion Process (ACSP) submission regarding IPv6 fees. The Board has the matter under advisement, and the Board will continue to look into an IPv6 fee reduction or waiver. The President further noted that there is a larger fee restructuring being considered for 2021, which may include this matter.

  • Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2020-1: Clarify Holding Period for Resources Received via 4.1.8 Waitlist
  • Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2020-3: IPv6 Nano Allocations
  • Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-5: Clarify and Update Requirements for Allocations to Downstream Customers

The Chair stated that there were two votes that failed during the November AC meeting on this policy. Those options are still available today, and the policy will revert to draft status on January 5, 2021 should a motion made today fail.

AN stated that there have been no updates posted to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). It was posted that there was minimal to no impact from this policy, but there have been no comments received. AN believed it should be moved forward at this point.

The President stated that he had missed the November AC meeting, but he noted that after reviewing the minutes, questions about the fairness criteria in the ARIN Policy Development Process (PDP) were raised in the November AC meeting. He summarized the email, that he had sent earlier in the day to the ARIN AC, regarding the PDP definition of fairness - i.e. number resource policy must avoid setting policy that creates different outcomes when it applies to organizations in the same circumstances. This does not preclude criteria that considers: an organization’s need for number resources; existing number resources held; whether the request is an initial one or for additional resources; or, whether an organization applied earlier than another one. Rather, the requirement is to avoid policy criteria that is arbitrary or capricious in nature.

CT explained that in the last AC meeting he had raised the issue of fairness, but not in the technical sense of the PDP, but rather as “general equity.” He explained that the AC had changed the rules and rushed to produce something, then said they would go back to see if it needed to be clarified.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having completed a successful policy development process for ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN 2020-2: Reinstatement of Organizations Removed from Waitlist by Implementation of ARIN-2019-16,’ recommends it to the ARIN Board of Trustees for adoption.”

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

The motion failed with four in favor (AN, AP, CT, AW), and 9 against (AD, KH, JP, KR, LS, RS, KT, CW, TM), via roll call vote.

The Chair reiterated that the policy will revert to draft policy status on January 5, 2021, or the AC can vote to abandon it now and the community would gain the ability to petition the decision sooner. SH stated that one other distinction between an action now and reverting to draft policy by the PDP, is that an email announcement needs to be sent with the results of the motion, but it cannot be sent until the minutes are published - which would be an approximate 2-week timeframe. He noted that would be in the middle of the holiday season.

RS noted that abandoning the policy, as a way to accelerate the process, might not be effective given the holidays.

The President stated to the AC that if they believe that the policy should go back to the community as a draft policy, it would be best to take no action and have the policy revert per the PDP. If the AC decides to abandon the policy, it is an indication from the AC that they want the policy abandoned - as opposed to it simply reverting to draft policy status. Because the policy has completed the last call period, a petition would appeal it to the ARIN Board whether the policy is abandoned or not. The AC acknowledged the President’s advice.

AT stated that this policy needs to be presented at the next ARIN Public Policy Meeting (PPM). There were no changes at this time.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2020-6: Allowance for IPv4 Allocation “Swap” Transactions via 8.3 Specified Transfers and 8.4 Inter-RIR Transfers

AP stated that there was a renewal of conversation on the PPML, and that the policy shepherds will continue to monitor it, and gather any feedback. Once received, they will revise the text appropriately.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update Annual Renewal Fee

JP stated that discussion on the PPML provided additional input after the AC’s last meeting. The policy shepherds are awaiting further feedback in order to update the text and post another iteration. They are intending the changes to be editorial, but that is yet to be determined.

AW stated that changes on this policy were completed, but KR found one further update to be made. The text will be updated and sent to the authors for review, and then submitted for the AC’s next meeting.

10. Draft Policy ARIN 2020-10: Removal of Requirement to Demonstrate Utilization of Reassignments and Reallocations for ISPs Seeking Initial Allocation from ARIN

AP stated that the text was recirculated to PPML, with one comment received. She would continue to foster further discussion.

11. ARIN-Prop-295: Replace the Image in Section 2 with a Textual Description

AD stated that a community member pointed out, for accessibility reasons, that it is hard to read graphics and suggested replacing them with text. He noted that the proposal is clear and within scope.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-Prop-295: Replace the Image in Section 2 with a Textual Description’ as a Draft Policy.”

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

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

AD requested if staff could provide accessibility standards for graphics representation, and provide suggestions on how to accomplish in a manner that is a standard. The Chair asked SH to be the liaison. AD and the Chair thanked staff for the support.

CW asked if this could be an editorial change. AD stated that he hoped so, but at this time it needs to become a draft policy for modifications, and then be advanced to an editorial change when a direction forward is more clear.

12. AC WG NRPM Clean Up Update

JP stated that he was glad to hear that the policy shepherds on 2020-9 are ready to engage with the WG. He noted that the WG has a language update to Section 8, and a draft proposal to be submitted. There is additional work to be done on Section 6, which is under discussion, and the group will focus on Section 2 in the new year. JP noted that there is a handful of work pending, but it will not begin until 2020-9 is finalized. The Chair stated that she appreciated the work that has been done; and, she acknowledged that it was a lot of work. JP stated that he appreciated the support from CT.

13. AC WG PDP Improvements Update

AP stated that the first draft has been completed, and the policy shepherds are ready to move it forward. AP asked the Chair to request a formal staff review. The Chair acknowledged the request, stating she would do so today.

14. AC WG Policy Experience Report (PER) Update

CW stated that the WG has not met, as the group’s work has been completed. For the next PER, should there be one in February 2021, the WG will have other members in it, and they will reorganize at that time. He further noted the need for a new WG Chair, as he will no longer be a member of the AC. The Chair thanked CW for all of the work he had done.

15. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

  • Farewell to Chair, Tina Morris and AC Member, Chris Woodfield. The Chair stated that she will be resigning as of 12/31, and that CW’s term on the AC will be ending as well. She thanked CW for all of his work. She stated that he has helped the AC immensely, and how much she appreciated all that he has contributed. The AC echoed the sentiment.

    The Chair then thanked the Council, stating that they were a wonderful group to work with and that she was sad to be leaving the it. She noted she would still be “around,” and was confident that the AC would carry on very well. The AC stated they would miss the Chair very much.

16. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:32 PM ET. CT 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.