Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council

Thursday, 15 December 2011


Advisory Council Attendees:

  • John Sweeting, Chair
  • Scott Leibrand, Vice Chair (SL)
  • Dan Alexander (DA)
  • Cathy Aronson (CA)
  • Marc Crandall (MC)
  • Bill Darte (BD)
  • Owen Delong (OD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • Chris Grundemann (CG)
  • Marty Hannigan (MH)
  • Stacy Hughes (SH)
  • Rob Seastrom (RS)    

Minute Taker

  • Therese Colosi

ARIN Staff:

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


  • Stephen Ryan, Esq.


  • Kevin Blumberg (2012 AC Member-Elect)


  • Chris Morrow, Bill Sandiford, Heather Schiller

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:06 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted.

2. Agenda Bashing

The Chair called for any comments. The Chair stated the January AC meeting would be discussed under Any Other Business.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of November 16, 2011, as written."

The Chair called for any comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement

CG stated that he and OD were working on revisions, and that the text would be ready to be discussed at the January 2012 AC meeting. The President noted the preference for having the information as soon as possible ahead of the next Public Policy Meeting (PPM).  The Chair stated that everything on the AC’s docket would be discussed at the January face-to-face meeting. The President encouraged the AC to post changes to Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) as soon as they had them. CG confirmed all edits to date have been sent to the PPML, and there will be some further edits sent shortly.

5. ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVIII Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, finds Advisory Council and Community support for ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. DF stated he did not consider the text ready for last call. There were concerns from the community that had not been addressed. He did not support all of the community’s concerns, such as eliminating slow-start. He personally considered it needed to be rearranged, but did not get that sense from the floor at the PPM in October. It was noted that the polls taken at the PPM showed of the total of 133, there were 25 in favor, and 6 against.

SL stated that he recalled the community concerns and that they were discussed, but were not an overriding concern. He supported the motion move forward in order to air out any existing concerns by receiving suggestions from the community. He did not recall any suggestions during the PPM. 

CG did not agree with removing slow-start. SL asked CG to clarify what part of slow-start was a problem, as he recalled there was confusion at the PPM as to what was being removed.

CG recalled with regard to turning all transfer requests into 12-month need – a brand new organization can request 12 months. However, because they are a new organization to ARIN, there is no way for ARIN to validate the request. Slow start gives ARIN time to get to know the organization. CG believed removing slow start opened up a door for abuse.

RS countered that there are immediate need request procedures that have been allowed for a very long time. There is a high level of scrutiny on those requests. If there is a request for 12 or 24 months worth of transfer, ARIN staff would put in the proper amount of due diligence on those requests.

DA stated his sense from the PPM discussion was that there was concern about slow start, but there was an overriding issue of the financial matter of purchasing blocks, and the time involved. Being bound to a 3-month timeframe is a bigger downside than the risk of slow start. That is why he made the motion to forward to last call.

OD stated that he agreed with CG. He believed it was a bad idea to remove slow start, and there was sufficient concern at the PPM about it by the community. He was not in favor of the motion. 

SL stated he did not read that the text removes it, but noted a statement removed from section, replaced within section 8.3, justifying address usage in 12 months.

DF stated his view is that the intent essentially bypasses slow start for a transfer. RS questioned why was the 25 to 6 vote at the time then considered to be satisfactory?  OD stated that the net effect is that it effectively applies 12-month transfers to, but to existing slow start mechanisms, and creates a bypass of slow start for transfers. The vote of 25 to 6 is based on the belief that we were addressing the issues before we move it to last call. However, we are moving it forward regardless.

CG agreed with OD and with RS about immediate need and the high scrutiny ARIN staff exhibits. He noted however that so far, the high profile transfers have seemed problematic for ARIN. He was concerned that transfers coupled with any legal proceedings, may leave staff in a position of not having the discretion of greater scrutiny, and again, this opens up the door for abuse.

DF stated, with regard to the count of the room, that there were quite a bit of people who did not vote. While there was support for this, there were a lot of people who were not comfortable voting one way or another. He believed this does not show consensus just yet.  He believed the AC needed to address the community’s concerns before moving forward.

SH pointed out to keep in mind this is only “last call”, and not a recommendation to the ARIN Board for adoption. If there is more to be said, the AC will hear it. 

SL reiterated that if there are other suggestions to address the concerns they have not been seen any on PPML posting. He believed the text needed to move forward to get the feedback from the community, and if it needs another last call, we will do that.

DF stated he was still not ready to move the Draft Policy (DP) forward.

OD stated to SL that the DP as written does not distinguish between a past track record with provider assigned space, and one that does not. It is an open invitation to speculators to make up a business plan. OD stated he was still opposed.

BD stated he supported the motion, as did MC and RS.

Hearing no further comments, the Chair called the vote.

The motion carried with 8 in favor (DA, CA, MC, BD, SH, SL, RS, JS), and 4 opposed (OD, DF, CG, MH) via roll call.

BD suggested that dissenting views should be aired on PPML when put out for last call. The Chair agreed.

6. ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 Months

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, based on comments from stakeholders expressed either at the ARIN XXVIII Public Policy Meeting, or on the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List, having reviewed the comments collected, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, finds Advisory Council and Community support for ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 Months and moves to it to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated that he believed that the previous DP was a bad idea and that this one was twice as bad. He was opposed. SL supported motion.

Hearing no further comments, the Chair called the vote.

The motion carried with 9 in favor  (DA, CA, MC, BD, MH, SH, SL, RS, JS) and 3 against (OD, DF, CG) via roll call.

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

DA stated that he continues to work with the author on the text, and sent him an email recently. On the last update to the PPML, he stated he did not word it correctly to accommodate inter-RIR transfers, and that he would post a message to the PPML next week to spur discussion further. Since there is no support on the PPML to eliminate needs based on transfers, DA stated that he might move to abandon this proposal at the next AC meeting in January.  He stated he would forward communications to DF.  DF thanked him.

8. ARIN-Prop-157: Section 8.3 Simplification

SL stated the current text has support on the PPML. He still needed to work on the text to determine whether to use this language, or to modify it if necessary. He planned to have it done by the January AC meeting for discussion at that time.

9. ARIN-Prop-159: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled  ‘ARIN-Prop-159: IPv6 Subsequent Allocations Utilization Requirement’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket.”

The Chair called for discussion. OD stated he believed it was generally a good idea, but that it needs some work to address ARIN staff’s comments. He supported intent of the proposal.  SL agreed. 

The motion carried unanimously via roll call.

10. Any Other Business

  • The Chair reminded the AC that the next face-to-face meeting would be held 20 January 2012 in Reston, Virginia. There will be an informal dinner on 19 January near the hotel. He noted regrets from CA, BD, and MH; and, requested any others to please contact him and ARIN staff.  If anyone has anything to be discussed on agenda, please also provide. He asked if CA, BD or MH wanted to call into the January face-to-face AC meeting. MH stated he would do so.  It was determined he should dial in at 1:00 p.m. EST.
  • The Chair thanked MC for his 3 years of service as an ARIN AC member. The President also thanked him and stated he will be missed, as he was a great asset to the team.
  • CA mentioned that she and HS were working on proposal 159 with Aaron Hughes (author). She noted that the PDP states that, once proposed, the AC owns the proposal and that the proposer has no further say. I believed the AC needs work with the authors.
  • The President stated that a portion of the PDP is currently being addressed to encourage work between the AC and the author in the policy proposal stage. He noted it is not required, but is expected.  He pointed out that there is a point where the AC knows the parameters and the purpose of the proposed policy; and, that would be the time when it goes from proposal stage to an AC draft policy. At that point, the ownership of the draft policy needs to be with the AC.  The PDP will distinguish between the two, and this will be discussed in the AC workshop in January.

11. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:50 p.m. EST. SH moved to adjourn, seconded by RS. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.