Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 April 2024

Bridgetown, Barbados

Draft Minutes

These minutes are DRAFT. They have been reviewed by the ARIN Advisory Council prior to posting. These minutes will remain draft until they are reviewed and approved by the ARIN Advisory Council at their next regularly scheduled meeting.

ARIN AC Attendees:

  • Kat Hunter, Chair (KH)
  • Matthew Wilder, Vice Chair (MW)
  • Doug Camin (DC)
  • Matthew Gamble (MG)
  • Gerry George (GG)
  • Elizabeth Goodson (EG)
  • Brian Jones (BJ)
  • Kendrick Knowles (KK)
  • Kaitlyn Pellak (KP)
  • Gus Reese (GR)
  • Leif Sawyer (LS)
  • Daniel Schatte (DS)
  • Alicia Trotman (AT)
  • Alison Wood (AW)
  • Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela, General Counsel
  • Alyssa Arceneaux, Exec. Coord./Scribe
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Eddie Diego, Policy Analyst
  • Jenny Fulmer, Staff Attorney
  • Lisa Liedel, Dir., Reg. Svcs. (virtual)
  • John Sweeting, CCO


  • Nancy Carter, Board Trustee
  • Peter Harrison, Board Trustee
  • Tina Morris, Board Trustee
  • Chris Tacit, Board Trustee

1. Welcome.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 10:56 a.m. AT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed everyone to the meeting.

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)

The Chair called for any comments or objections to approve the Minutes of 21 March 2024. There were no comments. The Minutes were approved with no objections.

4. Draft Policy ARIN-2022-12: Direct Assignment Language Update.

DC stated that this policy received positive feedback from the meeting, but the Policy Shepherds will hold off on moving the text to recommended draft policy status until next month. KP noted that the policy text refers to changing the language, but asked for clarity regarding the language in the previous section and if it also need to be updated. DC replied that, at this point, The does not want to add more language to this draft policy. He stated KP made a great point and that they could possibly collect a few more language updates in Section 6, and could make them into an editorial update.

It was moved by BJ, and seconded by KP, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2023-1 Retire Slow Start’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for comments. The Chair congratulated KP on her first presentation at ARIN 53. She further noted that the 14-day Last Call period would start from Monday, 22 April, and that hopefully it will be ready by the May AC meeting to recommend to the Board for adoption.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

AT stated that there were comments about the language being outdated and that more appropriate words to use would be ‘directory services’. She also stated that if the changes from the comments were made, the solution would no longer match the problem statement. She stated her intent to move to abandon the policy, and would draft a new policy to address the solution that would most likely move through the process faster.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2023-4: Modernization of Registration Requirements’.”

The Chair called for comments. MW agreed that the policy should be abandoned, and that it may be helpful to have an additional policy or applicable law for the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) as there was confusion. AT stated the confusion was specifically in the privacy section about directory services and registry services. General Counsel noted that in dealing with the Policy Development Process (PDP), there is a legal review to ensure that there are no legal issues so as not to cause ambiguity.

The President stated that policy should be made for the Registry based on what the Community wants, and then applied evenly to all participants — for example, the residential privacy section. The AC should decide what they believe makes sense based on the Community’s input and drive the Registry policy. The legal team will then confirm it from that point. The CCO pointed out that role names and aliases can be registered.

The Chair mentioned that the Policy Experience Working Group (PERWG) has agreed to take this matter on if the motion to abandon carries.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

The Chair requested a statement of abandonment by Friday.

AW stated clarifications appear in the NRPM in four different sections. She noted specifically that Section 4.10 uses the word “block” twice and she would like it to be removed. She stated doing so would not change the substance of the policy as was intended.

It was moved by AW, and seconded by GR, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2023-5: Clean-up of NRPM Sections 4.3.4, 4.4, 4.10 and 6.10.1’ to Last Call, with the removal of the word ‘block’ in the text, and the update to ‘allocation’ in the heading of Section 4.10.”

The Chair called for comments. CW asked, regarding the removal of the term ‘block’, is this an allocation or a prefix — do we currently have a term? AW clarified that it is just a filler term not referencing anything specific. The Chair noted that it is editorial and everyone that came up to the microphone during ARIN 53 and on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), seemed to agree. MG asked about the heading verbiage and noted that it may be more confusing if the word block was removed.

CW asked about extending the Last Call period. ARIN’s Policy Analyst noted that the period could be extended up to 30 additional days.

EG asked about using the word ‘resource’. AW said she is fine with whichever word is chosen. DC believed the right singular word to use is allocation. DS agreed with DC that the word allocation is the correct term as it is used throughout.

AT stated that she needed to make sure that IPv4 is specifically stated. MW asked about sending the text back for further review. AW believed the text was still ready to move forward with the word edits.

The Chair suggested to remove ‘block’ from the text, move to using ‘allocation’ in the header, and include the extended 30-day review to the Community. DC agreed.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

AT stated that this policy has received positive feedback.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2023-6: ARIN Waitlist Qualification’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for comments. MW stated that the policy was well presented, and saw very strong support from the Community. It is a natural next step to move to Last Call.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

CW stated that the Community’s feedback in the room showed that it does not have community support to move to Last Call. There were a number of suggestions for edits to achieve the problem statement originally set forth. It is a recommended draft policy with minor edits, so there is the option to revert the text to draft policy status where these edits can be made in the next 60 days.

It was moved by CW, and seconded by LS, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council reverts ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2023-7: Clarification of NRPM Sections 4.5 and 6.11 Multiple Discrete Networks’ to Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for comments. The Chair believed it was a good choice to revert the policy and take on the Community’s changes that were suggested. She believed there would be support with the minor edits made. DC noted that there may be conflicts with another policy. The Chair asked that CW provide a short statement of why the AC chose to revert the policy, and include the possible conflict with 2022-12.

The motion carried unanimously via roll call vote.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation.

GG stated that varied and fairly diverse comments were made in the room with clear direction. Per comments on the PPML, he noted it was not clear where the Community wanted to go. Once the transcripts are received, he will go back to the PPML with no major changes, and he will look at changing the status of this policy next month. BJ stated that there were a lot of comments in the room and the transcripts were needed. KP stated an answer from the President on her question in the room was received, and she was no longer concerned.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2024-1: Definition of Organization ID/Org ID.

GR stated that the feedback in the room was positive, and he will be reviewing those comments. His intent is to request a staff and legal review in the next week or so, and hope to move the policy forward at the next meeting to recommended draft policy status.

12. Draft Policy ARIN 2024-2: WHOIS Data Requirements Policy for Non-Personal Information.

LS stated that the language is in scope, but there were some concerns about the privacy policies in Sections 2 and 3 and possibly merging the two sections. He will continue to work on this item. DS stated the feedback was that the identified address data referenced a lot of U.S.-based information, and they will work to make it more general. AT agreed with DS, and wanted to make sure there was no region-specific language.

13. ARIN-edit-2024-3: Edit Section 2.

KK stated that there is still no movement on this editorial update. He noted that the review period will be ending on 25 April.

14. ARIN AC Working Group.

  • Policy Experience Report (PER) Working Group Update. AW stated that there has been a tremendous amount of work done by the WG. They have an upcoming meeting in May, and assignments will stem from policies coming in and from the CCO’s Policy Report.

15. Any Other Business. The Chair called for any other business.

  • Changes in Employment and Affiliation. None reported.
  • ARIN 53 Table Topics Feedback.
    • Section 4. There was discussion about the potential retirement of this section and if other sections would need to be updated to support that outcome.

    • Section 6. CW stated that it was agreed that no one is a fan of the ratio formula in the policy. He stated that he believed that it is beneficial to continue to compare Sections 6 and 4 to consider how these items would work. MW stated that he wanted to make the NRPM approachable, but noted a good customer experience online.

      A Board Trustee asked about actionable items that come out of the tabletop discussions. The Chair replied that the PERWG takes on the items that come out of those discussions. The CCO noted how Section 6 came about, stating it was originally a global policy.

    • Privacy Discussion. LS noted that the President provided much insight and helped clear up misconceptions on privacy and the Internet. Some of the newer policies (out of Canada) are applied here in the region, and he was not aware of any personal privacy in organizational records, case studies for increased security risks and vectors, based on that personal information. Private versus anonymous registrations were discussed and whether or not it was appropriate. It was thought that other RIRs WG’s validate and clean up their contact database. DS agreed, and noted there were questions about Whois.

The Chair noted that the NANOG Community liked the tabletop discussions but had a recommendation for more informal tabletop topics, such as a job-seeking table, and what was your first ARIN tabletop discussion (that would help generate discussion).

The Chair thanked the Council for their hard work and great presentations during ARIN 53.

16. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 11:57 a.m. AT. MG moved to adjourn, seconded by AW. The meeting adjourned with no objections.