Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council

Thursday, 23 June 2011


Advisory Council Attendees:

  • John Sweeting, Chair
  • Scott Leibrand, Vice Chair (SL)
  • Cathy Aronson (CA)
  • Owen DeLong (OD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • Chris Grundemann (CG)
  • Martin Hannigan (MH)
  • Stacy Hughes (SH)
  • Chris Morrow (CM)
  • Bill Sandiford (BS)
  • Heather Schiller (HS)
  • Robert Seastrom (RS)

Minute Taker

  • Thérèse Colosi

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela (MA), Staff Attorney
  • Einar Bohlin (EB), Policy Analyst
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Nate Davis (ND), COO
  • Leslie Nobile (LN), Director, Registration Services


  • Stephen Ryan, Esq.


  • Dan Alexander, Marc Crandall, Bill Darte

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. EDT. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

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

3. Approval of the Minutes

It was moved by RS, and seconded by BS, that:

"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of May 19, 2011, as written."

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously with no objections.

4. Board Ratification of Policy Proposals

The following is provided as an informational item to the AC. At their meeting on June 10, 2011, based on the recommendation of the ARIN Advisory Council, the ARIN Board of Trustees reviewed and ratified the following draft policies:

  1. ARIN-2011-3: Better v6 Allocation for ISPs.  
  2. ARIN-2011-4: Reserved Pool for Critical Infrastructure.
  3. ARIN-2011-6: Returned IPv4 Addresses.

At their meeting on June 10, 2011, based on the recommendation of the ARIN Advisory Council, the ARIN Board of Trustees reviewed ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension for ratification. The Board did not ratify this draft policy, but rather moved as follows:

"The ARIN Board of Trustees takes the recommendation of Draft Policy ARIN-2011-5: Shared Transition Space for IPv4 Address Extension formally under advisement, and directs the President to consult with the IAB and IETF on the potential hazards of adopting said draft policy."

The President explained that the Board requested ARIN not act on this policy, but take the policy under advisement until guidance is received from the IAB regarding implementation. He stated that a request for guidance from IAB was sent, the IAB has responded, and, that he had forwarded the response to the AC’s list. The IAB had a procedural concern that making this reservation is potentially outside the scope of ARINs’ mission and contrary to the intent of RFC 2860.

The President stated that he was not sure that the IETF had fully considered the matter of this technical reservation in the past, and noted that the IAB offered discussion of this request as a normal technical reservation at a future IETF meeting. The President also noted that ARIN needed to consider the agreement between the IAB and ICANN (as expressed in RFC 2860), which directs that the making of reservations for technical purposes is a role of the IANA and not of the RIRs.

CG asked that if IANA is the only source of technical reservations and has no IPv4 space, where did that leave ARIN? The President stated he did raise that issue in his discussions with the IAB Chair, but did not see it as a problem. He stated that there is no difficulty releasing to IANA the necessary address space given the clear expression of support in the ARIN community had already shown with 2011-5.  The IAB may ask ARIN to do so.

CA stated that she would be attending the IETF meeting and will attend the session regarding this topic.

5. ARIN-2011-1: Globally Coordinated Transfer Policy

RS stated this is not ready to move forward and the right thing to do is to discuss it at the ARIN Public Policy Meeting (PPM) in Philadelphia in October to get better consensus from the room. The Chair reminded him to let ARIN staff know the AC wanted to present it in October. RS agreed.

6. ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement

CG stated that textual changes from the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) were suggested, before this was on the AC’s docket. He stated that additional feedback would be welcome to get text finalized before the ARIN PPM. The President stated that the staff and legal review argued against using the term “material’, given that the term had legal implications; and, yet noted that he had sent an e-mail recommending its use in the policy. The overall message was that inclusion of the term would preclude action unless based on very clear evidence, and that the absence of it will provide more leeway to staff interpretation. Ultimately, the policy should match the community intent in this area. A message of clarification will be sent to the AC and to the PPML.

7. ARIN-Prop-137: Global Policy for Post-Exhaustion IPv4 Allocation Mechanisms by the IANA

DF stated this policy was adopted by APNIC, is in Last Call in AFRINIC and LACNIC, and is up for discussion at RIPE. He stated he would check with authors and others monitoring it globally but was reluctant to make changes to the text. He stated he will foster discussion on the PPML for guidance, and will have it ready for the next AC meeting in July.

8. ARIN-Prop-140: Business Failure Clarification

OD stated the text was ready for staff and legal review. He preferred to modify the text to require people report to ARIN when their organization ‘goes under’, but sought guidance from AC on it. The Chair requested that OD send the request to him, to have the staff and legal review done. OD agreed.

SL stated that he did not see any way of enforcing the current requirement that the point of contact (POC) must notify ARIN; and, that he was inclined to accept the author’s language and take it to the PPM for discussion in October. RS did not believe most POC’s would report such a thing. MH stated that the public filing of bankruptcy should be good enough.

The President stated that in May he had discussed the matter with Counsel and had sent a message to the PPML with regard to the original version of policy proposal, on the subject of business failure. He noted that this was a case where ARIN had no choice but to comply with state law, which governs how parties manage contracts in bankruptcy based on whether they are either executory or non-executory. He noted that there is not much advice ARIN can receive from the community on how to handle bankruptcy due to its state law.

OD reiterated that he would prefer to have the text read ‘must notify’, but will leave it as ‘should notify’, and will send the request to the Chair for the staff and legal review to be performed.

9. ARIN-Prop-141: Combined M&A and Specified Transfers

SL stated this text was ready to be presented in October at the ARIN PPM.

10. ARIN-Prop-144: Remove Single Aggregate Requirement from Specified Transfer

SL stated this discussion can wait until the next AC meeting, or be discussed on the AC’s list, as OD had a competing proposal to be discussed later in this meeting.

DA joined the meeting at this time (4:34 PM)

11. ARIN-Prop-146: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers

The Chair stated that the shepherds needed to send their request for staff and legal review. The shepherds (CM and DA) agreed to have that completed by the next AC meeting in July.

12. ARIN-Prop-147: Set Transfer Need to 24 Months and Clarify Exception

RS stated he needed to close the loop with the author and that a clarity and understanding report issue has not been addressed. However, he stated once that is done it would be ready for discussion at the ARIN PPM. He stated it should be ready to move forward at the next AC meeting in July.

13. ARIN-Prop-148: LRSA Resources Must Not Be Transferred to LRSA

It was moved by CA, and seconded by SH, that:

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘LRSA Resources Must Not Be Transferred to LRSA’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."

The Chair called for discussion. CA stated the felt this was a business issue.  RS stated that in comparing the RSA and LRSA, the main difference is the revenue stream ARIN, and agreed it is a business issue. He stated ARIN should be allowed to use whichever agreement is the correct one to use in their judgment. OD disagreed stating that there was a significant difference between the agreements with regard to the requirement for continuing justification and retaining space under Section 12. He stated that the RSA applies to recipients of transfers. He understood it was a business issue, but felt if the AC abandons the proposal and the community does not get the opportunity to discuss it, it sets an unfavorable precedence.

The President stated that to the extent the community has a goal to accomplish, for example, that address space subject to reclamation should publicly be published, then that is good policy and such goals should be included in policy proposals. However, the agreements (RSA, LRSA, etc.) are subject to the Board and staff and Counsel and are not a policy matter. Any particular policy goal should be included as part of the policy, and ARIN will make an agreement line up with the policy. ARIN cannot, however, make a policy specify language, or particular version, of an agreement. If the community wants a policy goal, state it in policy. ARIN wants to do what the community wants; but place policy goals in policy, not in agreement references.

SL stated that is exactly what is in policy proposal 152, and he was in favor of abandoning 148, in favor of accepting 152. OD agreed with SL, given the President’s explanation.

The motion to abandon carried unanimously via roll call.

14. ARIN-Prop-149: Improved Transparency for Directed Transfers

HS stated that she had sent note to the AC for feedback regarding the issue that this is more of a suggestion than a policy, as it is about publishing a list. She asked if the AC agreed that it should be brought through the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) instead and if so, should this proposal be abandoned?

The President stated that ARIN handles the publication of resource changes via the RSS feeds.  It reports on prefixes presently added or removed on the RSS feed daily. There is no problem adding transfers to it. One can suggest listing resources that are added/removed as a result of a transfer – but it may not have the level of detail folks want to review. If ARIN publishes information regarding original and subordinate prefixes, that would be additional information that may be subject to the Non-Disclosure Agreements of applicants.

HS stated they are asking for a block in WHOIS and what was published today.  The President stated that original and subordinate transferred under this policy is information more detailed than the final output in WHOIS. The concern is that if it were to be disclosed, it is possible that someone would say ARIN is disclosing something it is not required to do; and, that he would prefer to have it in a policy that ARIN could point to.

SL stated they are asking for what was transferred, and what the block was prior to the transfer. WHOIS information plus transaction log information – is that too sensitive? The Chair suggested that if the AC wished to continue the discussion, they move to add the proposal to their AC’s docket, noting that the proposal could be abandoned any time afterwards, if deemed necessary.

The President stated that ARIN is happy to provide this as a policy or as a suggestion, but wanted to be clear that if the AC wants the community to have a goal of disclosure for this information, then the policy process is a good place to record it.  With the ACSP, staff reviews it. The decision is whether or not the AC wants a community discussion of the principle of the proposal.

It was moved by HS, and seconded by SL, that:

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Improved Transparency for Directed Transfers’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket."

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

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

15. ARIN-Prop-150: Reclamation Hold

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Reclamation Hold’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."

The Chair called for discussion. It was noted that from feedback and the PPML, that most of the community wanted to lower the bar and not make it longer; and, that following that discussion, the author had asked to withdraw the proposal.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

16. ARIN-Prop-151: Limiting Needs Requirements for IPv4 Transfers

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Limiting Needs Requirements for IPv4 Transfers’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket."

The Chair called for discussion. DA stated that there is an issue with the specifics of the RSA’s language, which can be altered, but provides good counter to proposals 146 and 147. OD stated that the proposal basically eliminates needs-basis from transfer requirements and the community has stated that needs base should be preserved. Od did not view the proposal as having merit. SL agreed but agreed with DA to have a full discussion of an alternate structure. SL was supportive of the motion.

The motion carried with 12 in favor (SL, DA, CA, DF, CG, MH, SH, CM, BS, HS, RS, JS) and 1 against (OD) via roll call.

17. ARIN-Prop-152: RSA Modification Limits

It was moved by CM, and seconded by MH, that:

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘RSA Modification Limits’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."

The Chair called for discussion. CA stated that earlier when the AC was discussion 148, it was noted this proposal would be considered and it seemed odd to motion to abandon it. OD agreed, stating that given that 148 was abandoned, the AC should absolutely put this proposal onto their docket to work on it. He noted the community was clear that they wanted something done.

CM stated that the shepherds read the intent of this proposal as directing ARIN against legal requirements indicating the need for a legal policy, or asking ARIN to do something it cannot legally do. The shepherds deemed it not feasible. MH agreed.

The President stated that the staff and legal review has not been done, and that that will point out these issues, if indeed that is the case. If the AC would like a legal review, he suggested they accept it to their docket and the review will answer the questions.

RS asked CM if he felt it should be abandoned after what the President had just stated. CM stated that the intent of this proposal is to unveil legal decisions made on number assets, which have been closed out through court orders. He was in favor of abandoning.

MH stated he agreed with CM. He stated that from his perspective, the issue was for the Board and Counsel and the AC could address the topic in October, if they did not agree.

OD noted that the last paragraph did state that the requirements may be waived but the court order must be public, and noted that that is normal. SL stated he was unsure he liked the text as written. In the spirit of transparency that the AC supports, putting the proposal on docket could foster discussion, and the AC could see what text should and should not be in proposal.  Then it could be presented for discussion in October. He was against abandoning the proposal.

The motion to abandon failed with 6 (MH, SH, CM, BS, RS, JS) in favor of abandoning, and 7 against (SL, DA, CA, OD, DF, CG, HS) via roll call.

18. ARIN-Prop-153: Correct Erroneous Syntax in NRPM 8.3

It was moved by CA, and seconded by CG, that:

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled, ‘Correct Erroneous Syntax in NRPM 8.3’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket."

The Chair called for discussion. SL opposed the policy, but stated it should be discussed at the ARIN PPM. The error being to reinstate single aggregate, and make it a fact that that is what it needs.

DA needed to leave at this time (5:08 pm EDT).

The motion carried with 10 in favor (SL, CA, OD, DF, CG, CM, BS, HS, RS, JS) and 1 against (MH) via roll call.

It was noted that SH was having technical difficulties and did not vote. The Chair stated that, although it would not affect the outcome of the vote, the vote would be held open until adjournment, should SH be able to rejoin the call.

19. Any Other Business

The Chair called for any other business.

  • AC Participation in the Petition Process. The President explained, per the AC’s request, that a legal and parliamentary review of the AC Standing Rule regarding AC members not participating in PDP Petitions has been completed.  No legal issue was identified with respect to establishment of this Standing Rule. However, from a parliamentary perspective, adoption of the Standing Rule creates an ambiguity with respect to the existing language in the Petition Process of the ARIN Board adopted Policy Development Process (PDP).  

    Roberts Rules of Order minimizes the potential for creation of such ambiguities by precluding subordinate bodies from establishing their own rules unless specifically directed to do so. Upon careful review, it was determined that the ARIN Advisory Council should not be establishing their own standing rules, as it is unclear what precedence any such rule has with respect to Board adopted materials.

    By having any Standing Rules adopted by the Board, the potential for conflict with established rules is greatly reduced.  At its June 10, 2011 meeting, the ARIN Board of Trustees adopted an AC Standing Rules and Special Rules of Order document that contains the existing set of AC rules, except for the new rule prohibiting AC participation of petitions.  

    He stated that the AC is free to recommend any changes to these rules to the ARIN Board, and such suggestions will be considered in a timely manner.   AC member participation in petitions currently remains available, and should only change if a revised PDP is adopted which contains such provisions.

    The Chair noted that if there were any new standing rules the AC would like adopted, they would send them to the ARIN Board for ratification.

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

The Chair acknowledged that SH could not rejoin the meeting. He closed the vote on Item 18. ARIN-Prop-153: Correct Erroneous Syntax in NRPM 8.3. with the final vote recorded: 10 in favor and 1 against.

20. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:17 p.m. EDT. CG moved to adjourn, seconded by CM. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.