Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 21 October 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 As a result, some content, specifically links to other pages and other references, may be out-of-date or no longer available.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)
  • Andrew Dul (AD)
  • Gary Giesen (GG)
  • Kat Hunter, Vice Chair (KH)
  • Anita Nikolich (AN)
  • Amy Potter (AP)
  • Joe Provo (JP)
  • Alyssa Quinn (AQ)
  • Kerrie Richards (KR)
  • Rob Seastrom (RS)
  • Chris Tacit (CT)
  • Matthew Wilder (MW)

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela, (MA) General Counsel
  • Jenny Fulmer, (JF) Staff Counsel
  • Sean Hopkins, (SH) Senior Policy Analyst
  • Richard Jimmerson, (COO), Chief Operating Officer
  • Lisa Liedel, (LL) Director, Registration Services
  • Thérèse Simcox, Sr. Executive Assistant, Scribe
  • John Sweeting, (CCO) Chief Customer Officer

ARIN Board:

  • Paul Andersen, Board Chair


  • Alicia Trotman (AT)
  • Matthew Wilder (MW)

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. ET. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair acknowledged regrets from AT and MW.

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

(Exhibit A)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 16 September 2021, as written.”

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.

RS stated that he had not had a chance to discuss the updates with co-shepherd AP. AP stated that they will discuss the community feedback received during the recent ARIN 48 Virtual Meeting.

KR stated that this policy was presented at ARIN 48 and most questions from the community were procedural to which the CCO replied. She further noted there was full support with none opposed in the ARIN 48 chat room, with 37 in favor and 0 against. She and MW will continue to progress the policy when MW is available. KR stated that she is happy to have received the feedback from the community, and there has been no traffic on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) since ARIN 48. She pointed out that a grammar check will be performed per community feedback.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2021-3: Private AS Number and Unique Routing Policy Clarifications.

CT stated that there was not much feedback received on the PPML and asked if it was appropriate to request a staff and legal review at this time. He asked for the AC to provide their feedback.

AD asked if the current text was the original text, to which CT stated it was. CT stated it was not amended in any way. He stated that suggestions are welcome with regard to any amendments and would therefore delay requesting a staff and legal review.

JP stated that he and CT have not been able to meet since the ARIN 48 meeting and noted that the language regarding private ASN’s needed to be edited. CT agreed.

AD did not believe the text was ready for a staff and legal review. It needed work on the language regarding private AS use and did not believe that the text went far enough to help the community understand when an AS is used and is unique. CT stated that it was great feedback and that he would work on the suggestions.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2021-4: Clarifications to Sections 8.3, 8.4 and 8.5.6.

AQ stated that she and AD have not met yet to discuss the feedback, but there was broad support at ARIN 48. There have been PPML comments since then with regard to material changes or staff interpretation, and proposed text to make it clearer – that transfers are independent of each other. She noted this may be a good direction to clarify the text. AQ noted the recent comment on the PPML with regard to it being a material change and that should be a separate policy. She did not support that idea and asked the AC for their thoughts.

AD agreed that feedback needed to be incorporated from the meeting and the PPML but did not agree with a separate policy being crafted. He stated work should be performed on an updated draft with the intent on moving it to recommended draft policy status before ARIN 49.

AN noted a recent comment on the PPML for streamlining the policy which came in from David Farmer. JP agreed with the suggestion.

AP stated it was early enough in the process that there was no need to separate the policy at this point, as there will be many review periods yet to come.

AQ stated that she and AD will meet next week to further discuss the text.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2021-5: Update ISP and End User References For 2022 Fee Schedule.

JP stated that there was not much feedback from ARIN 48, but the shepherds will keep working on it. Over the course of next week, he and AW will check the PPML for any responses to keep moving it forward, noting the timeline is getting tight.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement.

AD stated that he had a chance to discuss the policy with MW. They will incorporate community feedback and post a draft update to clarify the intent that the policy only pertains to IPv4. AD stated he was skeptical that it will achieve support in the community, but it will be moved forward to ascertain support or opposition before any move toward abandonment. AD stated that comments were welcome from the AC.

GG stated that he was of two minds: he was in favor of increasing liquidity of the IPv4 market, but there is a disincentive for transferring resources, which is not best for the market or the registry. He supported continuing working on it if it can be edited, but also believed that no consensus will be gained. He did believe it is worth the time to see if something can come out of it.

RS stated, “To quote RFC 1627: ‘Some practices should not be codified’.” He stated he was highly interested in giving it its due to see if consensus can be gained, although he did not support the policy. He thanked the shepherds for continuing their work.

10. ARIN-prop-303: Make Abuse Contact Useful.

AP stated that the proposal has a clear problem statement, is fair and in scope.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-prop-303: Make Abuse Contact Useful’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

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

11. ARIN-prop-304: Deprecation of the ‘Autonomous System Originations’ field.

AN stated the shepherds read through the proposal and are meeting with the author to discuss it. AN stated that she and AT did not believe that the problem statement is clear and in scope. RS stated that he would like to join the call if the shepherds were amenable. AN welcomed his offer and stated that the spirit of the proposal is clear, but the scope needs to be clarified. The Chair thanked RS for volunteering to assist on it.

12. ARIN AC Working Groups

  • Number Resource Policy Manual Working Group (NRPM WG) Update. JP stated that there was not much to report this month. Section 2 definitions are drafted and discussions to place on clean up. They are working on task rebalancing.

  • Policy Development Process Working Group (PDP WG) Update. AP stated that the compare document has been read and hoped that the staff has everything they need to review the new document and provide feedback. The Chair stated that the document is undergoing staff and legal review and it should be done in the next week or two. AP thanked the Chair for the update.

  • Policy Experience Report Working Group (PER WG) Update. AW stated that there was nothing currently to report, but the WG will have a PER shortly from staff on which to work. SH stated that the PER was sent earlier this week via the PER mailing list. AW stated that email addresses were changed on her end and requested SH to resend it. SH agreed to do so.

13. Any Other Business

  • Changes in AC Member Affiliation or Employment. The Chair called for any changes. GG stated that he now works for Egate and that Paul Andersen, outgoing Chair of the ARIN Board, is his employer and that his employer is a customer of AD’s.

    SH requested that GG please update his biography on the AC Wiki so that SH could reflect the biography on the ARIN website. GG agreed to do so.

  • November AC Meeting . The Chair stated that the AC has a standing rule regarding when to hold meetings, which he read to the AC. He noted only three AC members would be attending the ARIN 48 Members Meeting in person, in Minneapolis in November. This would not gain consensus to hold an AC meeting in-person, therefore the Chair moved the following, seconded by RS:

    “The Advisory Council, in accordance with their standing rules, agrees to hold their November meeting on Thursday, 18 November 2021.”

    The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

    The motion carried with all in favor and no objections, via roll call vote.

  • January 2022 AC Meeting. AQ asked for the status of the meeting location. The Chair replied that there was a vote via the AC’s mailing list conducted and he had sent the results to said list. He recapped that the AC has voted for a San Diego, CA location.

    It was asked that if only three AC members are going to Minneapolis in November, is the AC anticipating traveling in January to San Diego? The Chair replied that travel restrictions from Canada seem to be opening and vaccinations for children 5 yrs. to 12 yrs. old are being released. He anticipated a safer travel experience for folks by January.

    It was asked if the AC felt comfortable traveling – noting that all reasons either to travel or not are valid - in order to be certain that folks are comfortable doing so, and that this will also help with staff’s meeting planning. The Chair replied that 9 AC members voted for holding an in-person meeting versus a virtual meeting. He believed that this indicates a feeling that it is becoming safer to travel by the end of January versus the current travel to Minneapolis in November.

    The CCO stated that if the majority of the AC cannot attend in person and staff cannot attend, it would become a virtual meeting; however, staff is able to provide a hybrid meeting and is prepared to support one, if needed. He stated that whatever the AC feels comfortable doing will be accommodated, noting that an in-person meeting would be held within the rules that the State of California has in place at that time.

    RS stated, speaking as a person in favor of a virtual meeting, that there is a large difference between attending a 100+ person event and attending a 20 person or less event. He did note that he recently attended a key signing with folks from everywhere, but his unwillingness to go to a large meeting in Minneapolis is not the same as going to a small meeting San Diego. He thanked everyone for their understanding and for asking for comments on each person’s preferences.

    KR believed it will be fairly safe, as vaccinations have ramped up for children, agreeing with the Chair’s comment.

    The Chair asked if staff has AC Member’s vaccination statuses. The CCO and COO confirmed that ARIN is not requesting that information at this time.

    The Chair thanked the AC for the great job presenting polices at ARIN 48 and the updates during today’s meeting.

14. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:44 p.m. ET. GG moved to adjourn, seconded by KR. 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.