Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 April 2021 [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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.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


  • Leif Sawyer, Chair (LS)
  • Owen DeLong (OD)
  • Andrew Dul (AD)
  • Gary Giesen (GG)
  • Kat Hunter, Vice Chair (KH)
  • Alyssa Moore (AM)
  • Anita Nikolich (AN)
  • Amy Potter (AP)
  • Joe Provo (JP)
  • Kerrie Richards (KR)
  • Rob Seastrom (RS)
  • Alicia Trotman (AT)
  • Alison Wood (AW)
  • Matthew Wilder (MW)

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela, (MA) General Counsel
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Sean Hopkins, (SH) Senior Policy Analyst
  • Lisa Liedel, (LL) Director - Registration Services
  • John Sweeting, (CCO) Chief Customer Officer


  • Chris Tacit

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. ET. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged regrets from Chris Tacit.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. OD requested an informal discussion of ARIN meeting participation. The Chair agreed.

3. Approval of the Minutes

(Exhibit A)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 18 March 2021, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

OD stated that there was good feedback received at the ARIN 47 meeting; and he thanked AP for presenting this policy. Feedback will be incorporated and the shepherds will move the policy forward from there. The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

AT stated that the results of the floor count during ARIN 47 were 47 in favor and 0 against. Based on that outcome, she believed this policy was ready for Last Call.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances “Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-7: 4.4 gTLD Micro-Allocation Clarification” to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 13 in favor, none against.

KR joined the call at 4:11 p.m. ET.

Without regard to this specific policy, the President took the opportunity to remind the AC to only send policies to Last Call that they intend to recommend to the Board for adoption after the last call. He stated that the Board did recently consider a policy because of the petition process, but would like to keep that a very rare event, i.e., policies should be sent to last call only once the AC is certain that they meet the stated principles for Internet number resource policy within the Policy Development Process (PDP).

The Chair thanked the President for the clarification.

JP stated that there was similarly good feedback at the ARIN 47 meeting, including 41 in favor and 0 against in the floor count. He stated that the Recommended Draft Policy seemed to be well received at the microphones, and that the low traffic on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) can be attributed to the policy’s non-controversial nature.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances “Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2020-8: Clarify and Update Annual Renewal Fee” to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, none against.

7. 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 there was a small amount of mixed reception at ARIN 47’s microphones and during the Q&A session. After discussing with RS, she would like to continue further discussion on the PPML for further feedback.

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

8. Draft Policy ARIN 2020-11: Add Textual Description for the Number Resource Hierarchy Image in Section 2

AD stated that there was good discussion at ARIN 47, which was in line with his expectation to move this policy to editorial change status.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts “Draft Policy ARIN 2020-11: Add Textual Description for the Number Resource Hierarchy Image in Section 2” as an Editorial Change.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with 14 in favor, none against.

9. Draft Policy ARIN 2021-1: ASN Clarifications to Sections 2, 8 and 10

AN stated that during ARIN 47 there were four people in favor (one on PPML), and some concern raised about this being a global policy. She stated that the AC may wish to split out the change in Section 10 and run it by the Address Supporting Organization Advisory Council to ICANN (ASO AC). She stated that an attendee asked the difference between IPv4 address space and number resources, and the policy shepherds will seek clarification on both items.

The Chair stated that he had notes to pass along from the ASO AC Chair, Kevin Blumberg.

The President stated that ARIN has a track record of successful globally-coordinated policies, but those generally occur after there is some experience in at least one RIR, followed by global coordination. If the community thinks this is a good policy, the AC should pursue it; and, if global policy needs to follow, the ASO can act accordingly.

JP stated that the Section 10 change is purely editorial and can be severed if it poses any issues. Regarding the IPv4 address terminology, the language stemmed from discussion with staff on the internal use of “IPv4 address” over “IPv4 resource.”

OD concurred. He believed that the idea that this has global policy ramifications is misguided, and that if global coordination is needed it is a nicety that can occur at any pace.

GG stated that because this is intended as an editorial change, anything with global implication can be severed. He also noted that Kevin Blumberg mentioned that other RIRs do not even have the same concept or process for editorial changes.

OD stated that the “editorial or not” discussion should be based on whether or not it clarifies text, and not whether or not it changes policy substantively. He stated that this clearly has no impact on registry operations - it simply provides clarity. Global coordination usually involves RIRs adopting similar, not necessarily identical, policy as they see fit.

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

10. Draft Policy ARIN 2021-2: Special Use IPv4 Space Out of Scope for Purposes of Determining Waitlist Eligibility

KR thanked MW for presenting the policy at ARIN 47, and stated that this was the first presentation at a public forum on this policy. The AC saw seven comments of support. The shepherds intend to continue to watch the PPML, as there was only one comment made on it so far. She expects to have more feedback now that it has been presented and will also work with the author as needed.

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

11. ARIN AC Working Groups

  • AC WG NRPM Clean-up. JP stated that as part of the ARIN 47 breakout sessions, the WG members received some feedback on the “LIR vs ISP” topic as well as some questions more relevant for the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP). The WG moved their usual meeting to next week, due to ARIN 47, and are still following draft policy work, keeping up active work in Section 6, and further work on definitions and fees. The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

  • AC WG PDP Improvements. AP stated that after a good discussion with staff, the WG needs to schedule time to get together and discuss potential changes. The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

  • AC WG Policy Experience Report (PER). AW stated that the Working Group received a new PER and will be working on it when they can get together. She further stated that she enjoyed the panel discussion at ARIN 47.

    The President stated that the AC should think about what content they would like to see in terms of guest speakers and any panels, going forward. He also noted that staff is tracking the IETF meeting for specific information on IRR, RPKI, etc. If the AC would like topics for the ARIN 48 meeting, timely feedback is encouraged.

    OD stated that he would come up with some items that he would like to see included.

12. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

  • Changes in AC Member Affiliation or Employment. The Chair called for any changes in member affiliation or employment. There were no comments.

  • Participation at ARIN 47. OD stated that he had heard that remote participation has been equivalent to in-person participation, but there is a nuance missing from that claim. He stated that the ARIN virtual meeting may have similar attendance, but a lower amount of actual participation.

    The President stated that while ARIN has had successful virtualized meetings, it is not clear how much of that is based on past success, or how success would be maintained if the meetings remained only virtual for years to come. He further suggested that virtual ARIN meetings may be operating smoothly mainly based on the past familiarity that the participants, ARIN staff, the AC, and the Board, have with one another; i.e. the virtual meetings may not be developing the same working relationships over time. Therefore ARIN is unlikely to hold only virtual meetings as the long-term approach. Tradeoffs need to be considered between virtual meetings and face-to-face meetings, as ARIN incurs substantial costs with an in-person meeting. Therefore, if there is the possibility of meeting the community’s requirements with just one in-person meeting per year, then that would be important to know. He encouraged the AC to think about their preferred format going forward, and express any feedback to the Board.

    AW left the call at 4:38 p.m. ET.

    AD asked if the ARIN 48 in-person session intended to be the regular Members Meeting with an AC and Board social aspect.

    The President replied that NANOG’s change to a Fall meeting did not allow for a full Public Policy Meeting (PPM) to be worked into the schedule, hence the hybrid meeting setup. ARIN will hold the same virtual policy discussions, and the Members Meeting portion will be in-person following NANOG’s meeting. ARIN plans to have full in-person and remote participation and will use the Fall meeting to work on making remote participation robust for all sessions.

    AD asked if the content would mirror past member meeting sessions or if there will be more content.

    The CCO stated that staff is looking at a Wednesday happy hour for both NANOG and ARIN attendees. On Thursday morning there will be an extended NANOG/ARIN breakfast, followed by a four-hour, in-person member’s meeting. No policy will be discussed as policy will be remotely discussed prior, as will the election forum. The members meeting will contain ARIN reports and staff intends to test the hybrid model with that content.

    AD noted that traditionally member meeting content does not draw many participants.

    The CCO stated that staff is happy to take feedback on content for the session. Staff is planning for a speaker and panel at this point, and feedback is encouraged sooner rather than later. On Thursday night there will be a Board/AC dinner, and an AC workshop is being planned for Friday.

    KH concurred with OD that the two in-person member meetings serve a purpose of drawing local participants who typically cannot get across the country and are looking for components of outreach and in-person meetings. Many organizations cannot justify the expenditures but would attend nearby in-person meetings. Virtual meetings work but do not draw much new participation. She stated that she would rather see robust virtual elements at normal in-person meetings.

    The President noted that ARIN is not committed to either approach and the main concern is having meetings that work for the AC and the ARIN community. If feedback showed desire from the community to hold two face-to-face meetings in smaller cities followed by an in-person meeting in the Fall, staff could look into that approach. He further stated that elections have an impact on Fall meetings that is non-trivial, but apart from that consideration, the main goal is ensuring the AC has what they need to accomplish their goals.

    MW stated that as a Canadian participant, travel is challenging, especially outside of Canada. It would be nice to have a meeting in Canada when possible; he suggested possibly on a two-year rotation.

    KR stated that 2016 was the last Jamaica meeting, Barbados was in 2018, and with all the changes in the Caribbean lately, she directs a lot of people to ARIN for policy implications. She stated that while ARIN exists in the Caribbean, she would like to see more visibility and, ideally, a meeting every two years in the Caribbean.

    AT concurred, asking if virtual meeting costs or hybrid meeting costs are substantially less than those incurred for an in-person meeting.

    The President replied that meetings involving a hotel incur the largest cost, along with booking a contingency of staff, AC, Board, and Fellows. Meeting space and catering are also major factors, and hybrid meetings still incur most of these costs. He encouraged the AC to think about what the AC and community need from meetings in the future.

13. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:56 p.m. ET. OD moved to adjourn, seconded by GG. 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.