Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council

Friday, 20 January 2012
Reston, VA


Advisory Council Attendees:

  • John Sweeting, Chair
  • Scott Leibrand, Vice Chair (SL)
  • Dan Alexander (DA)
  • Kevin Blumberg (KB)
  • Owen Delong (OD)
  • David Farmer (DF)
  • Chris Grundemann (CG)
  • Marty Hannigan (MH)
  • Stacy Hughes (SH)
  • Chris Morrow (CM)
  • Bill Sandiford (BS)
  • Heather Schiller (HS)
  • Rob Seastrom (RS)    

Minute Taker

  • Therese Colosi

ARIN Staff:

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


  • Stephen Ryan, Esq.


  • Cathy Aronson, Bill Darte

1. Welcome

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:02 p.m. EST. The presence of quorum was noted. He acknowledged that Mr. Hannigan and Mr. Sandiford were joining via teleconference.

2. Agenda Review

The Chair reviewed the agenda and called for comments. The Chair reviewed the deadlines for proposal submissions.

3. Approval of the Minutes

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council approves the Minutes of 15 December 2011, as written."

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. ARIN-2011-7: Compliance Requirement

CG stated there is a revision in the works and that he would have text revised by the deadline (01 February) for staff and legal review.

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

It was moved by DA, and seconded by SL, 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 during the Last Call period, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, supports ARIN-2011-11: Clarify Justified Need for Transfers and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

The Chair called for discussion.  DA stated it was a straight-forward draft policy, and that there was acceptance of the text at the last ARIN Public Policy Meeting (PPM). CG agreed that the majority of the community is behind moving it forward, but that some were against removing slow start from transfers. He stated he was against the motion. DA recognized this, but stated most were satisfied with the 12-month period.

DF stated he was deliberate in trying to get feedback during the last call period on this draft policy. He did not receive much feedback, and he supported the motion.

The motion carried with 11 in favor (SL, DA, KB, DF, MH, SH, CM, BS, HS, RS, JS), 2 against (OD, CG) via roll call.

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

It was moved by RS, and seconded by SL, 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 during the Last Call period, and noting that the Policy Development Process has been followed, supports ARIN-2011-12: Set Transfer Need to 24 Months and recommends the ARIN Board of Trustees adopt it.”

The Chair called for discussion. He stated this would interact with the 2011-11, to wipe out slow start; and, that it needs revising before adopting. 

Martin Hannigan had left the call and rejoined at this time (1:14 pm EST).

KB stated he was not in support of the motion, because of the 3 and 24-month timeframes.  He believed there was too much of a variance between the ‘haves’ in the 24 months, and the ‘have-nots’ in the 3 months. He believed in a 12-month period, seeing what other policies are in place, and then revisiting this one. DA agreed with KB. MH stated that there was no discussion on PPML on the window being lower, but rather either higher or as-is. He supported the higher window. RS restated what KB was suggesting: going back to 12 months for free pool.  He was concerned that not having it in place may undermine the policy process. He recognized a 12-month versus 3-month dichotomy, but believed it to be closer to an ideal situation. MH agreed.  CG stated that 2011-12 and 2011-11 should have been separated. Bumping up to 24 months is not good for first time buyers, but it is for sellers.

SL stated that much of the concern regarding slow start is based on fear and doubt that ARIN can enforce other policies without a number of how many months you need to justify it - give ARIN the tools they need to address legal issues. He believed it was essential to move toward 24 months as soon as possible.

CG stated that by adding 24 months to 2011-11, one could build a company to acquire large amounts of addresses, or an existing company can do it, and then lease them out. He believed it damaging the needs based system to allow new companies to acquire in 24 months. He was in favor the motion.

KB stated that many policies within the last year changed timeframes. He asked if ARIN was putting itself in a bad situation changing the times back and forth too often:  12 months to 3 months, then 12 months to 24 months.  The Chair stated that the community wanted these changes as the region runs out of IPv4.  KB stated he was was also in favor of the motion.

OD stated that 3-months for free pool and 24-months for transfers will extend the life of the free pool. The longer it lasts the more painful it will be to the Internet as a whole. The combined impact with draft policy 2011-11 is also there. HS agreed with OD, stating that ARIN is the steward for all space, not just for holders who have the finances to get space that lasts longer than the free pool. The times should be equal, or closer together. It creates disparity in what people can obtain. People pay the same amount, but now you can buy your way out – the disparity between one who can afford it, and one who cannot is not a good situation.

DF agreed, but did not believe the solution is to not move forward.  He believed it best to move another agenda item forward later on. He supported the motion, recognizing that it is far from perfect, but that it moves closer to perfection.

DA viewed it as a consensus issue and a credibility problem.  He stated that there were too many variables with what KB had touched on earlier, and he agreed. He believed there was a possible credibility problem if timelines are changed every 6 months. There needs to be a consensus across the board, with how many buckets there are and where they lie.  In 2011-11 there is a time limit clarified, but this one changes without addressing the issues in other buckets and time windows.

CG stated there are three ‘buckets’: allocation, assignments and transfers.  Fine-tuning the transfer policy is necessary. He disagreed with the 24-month/3-months disparity. He viewed it as an amazing feature - it is a soft landing.  He stated that by adding 12-months, it created incentive for big companies to buy a 24-month runway, leaving 3-months in the free pool for small entrance companies. He supported the motion and the 24-month window.  MH agreed with CG. He believed that there will not be slowing of access to the free pool; and, as it gets to the end, it will likely be people who do both and they will be in compliance with policy.  He supported the motion.

The motion carried 10 in favor (SL, DB, DF, CG, MH, SH, CM, BS, RS, JS), and 3 against (DA, OD, HS), via roll call.

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

DA stated he has been working on this for a long time, and that he sent a message with new text to the AC’s list this week. He stated that the original intent was to do away with it, and protect the free pool. However, the author has conceded that undoing the needs-review is not realistic, and it has been put back into the proposal.

DF stated that the rewriting of the proposal makes it need a new title. CG explained that the text just clarifies transfers now that 2011-11 recommends the need to maintain 12 months on allocations, assignments, and transfers.

The Chair stated the AC should send comments on the new text to DA by Feb 01.

8. ARIN-Prop-157: Section 8.3 Simplification

SL stated that proposal 151 may need to be merged with this proposal, but that there is no status on that at this time. As it stands, this proposal will not move forward. SL asked that any thoughts from other members be communicated via the AC’s list.

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

HS stated that, as written, this proposal opens up the possibility for abuse, and that revisions are being worked on. SL asked if she reviewed OD’s comments. HS stated that she had, but that they did not change the functionality. She stated she and OD could further review it together. The Chair stated that any suggestions should be sent to HS.

10. ARIN-Prop-160: Clarification of Section Utilization

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled ‘ARIN-Prop-160: Clarification of Section’, abandons it. The Council requests that the President advise the community of the availability of the Petition Process."

The Chair called for discussion. RS stated that after reviewing this proposal, it seemed to him it was a proposal to clarify language in this section; however it subtly changes the meaning of from the total amount of space held to the address space one has received from a particular ISP. He believed it was not appropriate, due to a deceptive title, and needs to be resubmitted with a new title to clarify the intent.

MH asked if the shepherds could have changed the title to address their concerns. The President stated that changing the title was an option available to the shepherds. MH believed it would be preferable to do that, versus discontinuing working on the proposal. He noted that the pressure is on with respect to IPv4 exhaustion; and, being subject to audits by no less than three parties, including ARIN, is very expensive. Being audited every three months is costly, not only to applicants but to ARIN. He stated that he is willing to live by policy that audits each request, but using ISPs as the go-between for ARIN's work is neither cost efficient nor effective.

RS stated the rationale was too vague in the text. He stated that if the goal is put a brake on the frequency of audits or costs; then, it should state that audits shall be deemed to be x amount of days from the last audit. MH stated he did not disagree. He stated that, as currently written, it is vague and he urged adoption and to continue to work on the text.  He stated he did not want to limit ISPs and their audits. 

The President noted that the text is currently under staff clarity review and understanding. He noted the shepherds and staff could work with the author to improve the text, title, and rationale. He believed the text could be fluid they want to work on it and that the PDP supports the resubmission of proposals.

CG stated that aside from a vaguely written rationale and the title, the affect of this policy is going in the wrong direction and supported the motion to abandon.

KB believed the issue was with the root change the policy makes, and the abuse it can lead to. Fundamentally, he stated, he can go to ISPs for space, and audit individually, and believed this is a mockery. RS agreed and suggested bringing it to the community if that is clear, and that it is the intent. OD agreed with CG and KB and also foresaw the increase for abuse.  DF stated he did not see any support on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) for this proposal and also supported abandoning it.

SL agreed and stated that the text, as written, is a not a good change to policy. If the author wants to work with staff to revise the text, SL stated he would oppose the motion; otherwise, he would not support it. He stated that a new proposal might be appropriate.

CM stated that if there is a situation where a resource holder holds under a limited number then this incorrectly judges across organizations with separate networks, because they cannot be connected. Penalizing someone is not a good idea.  There is no way to shuffle it, and it is part of the concern that the proposal is trying to address.  DF acknowledged that there is something to the proposal, and was against the motion, but recognized that the proposal needed a lot of work. MH noted that one key point is MDN.

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

11. ARIN-Prop-161: Normalize Free Pool and Transfer Justification Periods

The Chair stated there is currently no staff clarity and understanding report, and that there is no action required at this time.  DF pointed out that a concern was the 3-month versus 24-month disparity, and this proposal is directly aimed at that concern. He asked if the AC wanted to rush this proposal through for the PPM and, if so, he would make the appropriate motion(s) to do so.

SL stated that the merit of proposal need to be discussed and input was needed. CG stated that the difference in this proposal is a good thing, and it was raised a number of times and that discussion is good. He did not believe it necessary to rush it to next PPM. KB believed it should go to the next PPM and that is would be unfair to leave it to the October PPM for discussion.  He stated the text could be simply changed to deal with last call policies, incorporate that, and get it to move forward. OD agreed and stated he felt it bad enough that the dichotomy is in place, and that it should be rectified as soon as possible.

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

"The ARIN Advisory Council, having reviewed the proposal entitled  ‘Normalize Free Pool and Transfer Justification Periods’, accepts it onto the AC’s docket."

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

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

12. Discussion of Recommended Draft Policies

The President provided a brief status of recommended draft policies.

Martin Hannigan left the call at this time (2:29 p.m. EST).

13. Any Other Business

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

14. Adjournment

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 2:44 p.m. EST. SL moved to adjourn, seconded by SH. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.