Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 30 April 2025

Charlotte, North Carolina

ARIN AC Attendees:

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

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela, General Counsel
• John Curran, President & CEO
• Eddie Diego, Policy Analyst
• Jennifer Lee, Deputy General Counsel
• Lisa Liedel, Dir. Registration Services
• Richard Jimmerson, COO
• John Sweeting, CXO
• Alyssa Arceneaux, Exec. Coord./Scribe

Observers:

• Nancy Carter, ARIN Board Trustee
• Ron da Silva, ARIN Board Trustee
• Tina Morris, ARIN Board Vice Chair
• Bill Sandiford, ARIN Board Chair

1. Welcome.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 1:20 p.m. ET. 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. The COO and MW both noted items for Any Other Business.

3. Approval of the Minutes.

(Exhibit A)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the 20 March 2025 Minutes, as written.”

The motion carried with no objections.

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

GG stated that they received very good feedback during the ARIN 55 meeting, but the feedback was polarizing. The suggestion to give everyone a /24 gained support; however, he noted that in the past this was not the case. The suggestion going forward is to note the comments and suggestions and post a summary on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). He will monitor feedback to gain direction to move forward.

The Chair suggested if comments lean one way or the other, the policy shepherds should note that in the summary to get a more direct response. GG appreciated the suggestion as he believed comments will most likely lean towards abandonment and return to the problem statement.

The President stated that he was quiet during this discussion when presented but noted that the length of the wait list queue is more of a function of the internal process for the clean-up of returned and revoked address blocks. After review and clean-up, some address blocks come available, and others do not. It is not exactly predictable, although the resources ARIN puts towards that process is controllable. The AC needs to focus on what is good and what is bad policy, rather than the length of the wait list queue at any one moment. Additionally, he stated that if you want to set new limits or qualifications to be added to the wait list, and do not change the actual wait list then there will be little confusion. If you want to adjust the existing entries on the wait list, it is much more complicated.

The CXO confirmed that the size of the wait list does vary, however a lot of people on the wait list understand the length of waiting will vary. Most feel they can afford to wait but understand they may have to use the transfer market if their need becomes critical. The President followed up asking the AC what is the purpose of the wait list? Answering this might help determine what makes for good policy. A wait list that tries to accommodate each requestor’s full need for IPv4, as we did when we had unallocated space to issue, would mean different policy than a wait list that serves as last resort for all those with no other good option.

CW stated that he is not a fan of making policy that refers to earlier policy for transition. MW and the President both stated that it could be an implementation note.

GG noted that even though the wait list is growing, the amount of time on the wait list is not.

5. Draft Policy ARIN-2024-5: Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation.

CW stated that additional feedback on the PPML, and from the floor at ARIN 55, has been received. He stated that good suggestions were made for necessary changes, and that he will continue to work on this policy but plans to keep in draft status for now.

6. Draft Policy ARIN-2024-7: Addition of Definitions for General and Special Purpose IP Addresses.

KP stated that she had asked for enthusiastic support and received the opposite. She has tried engaging the community on the PPML, and at ARIN 55, with no positive support.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2024-7: Addition of Definitions for General and Special Purpose IP Addresses’.”

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair noted the fact that KP did everything possible.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

The Chair requested that KP provide a detailed abandonment statement.

7. Draft Policy ARIN-2024-10: Registration Requirements and Timing of Requirements with Retirement of Section 4.2.3.7.2.

AT appreciated LB presenting this policy at ARIN 55. She noted that good suggestions were made on updating language in the registry services section as there was a way for abuse to happen. It is a good policy for the Caribbean region. The plan is to summarize the comments and post them to the PPML for additional comments and feedback.

The Chair noted that there were some comments specifically about how the directory service could be taken out of context, and the text could be misleading. She suggested “approved directory service” as a replacement of the current text.

8. Draft Policy ARIN-2024-11: IPv4 Transition Efficiency Reallocation Policy (ITERP).

BJ stated that he received feedback at ARIN 55 and on the PPML, with some emphatic comments against the policy, but there are a few in favor of it. He stated he will be requesting a staff and legal review.

KP noted that the author was using reallocations and another term interchangeably and wants to make sure that is clarified during the staff and legal review.

MW also noted that there were some comments about what technologies would be applicable in the policy.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2025-1: Clarify ISP and LIR Definitions and References to Address Ambiguity in NRPM Text.

LS stated that, overall, the temperature in the room was positive and in the spirit of the policy. There were some concerns on the use of terms ‘ISP’ and ‘LIR’ in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM). He stated that will continue to work on this item and look for a common term where appropriate.

The CXO shared that the term ‘LIR’ ended up in Section 6 predominately because the policy began as a global document therefore, in order to be adopted as a global IPv6 policy, all RIRs were required to accept identical language. The Chair asked if the term ‘LIR’ was removed, would transfers with other regions be impacted? The CXO and Director of Registration Services assured them that this would not impact any transfers. It was also noted that the term ‘ISP’ is used specifically by the Registration Services Department when evaluating requests for Internet numbers. Tickets in ARIN Online are identified as either ISP or end user requests; the term ‘LIR’ is not used.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2025-2: Clarify 8.5.1 Registration Services Agreement.

GR stated that there was positive feedback on the PPML and at the end of the presentation. He noted no action on the policy today but stated that he will be requesting a staff and legal review.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2025-3: Section 9, Out of Region Use Minimum Criteria.

DC stated that this policy received good feedback at ARIN 55. There was both some support and concern with the policy. He plans to conduct additional research to understand the reasoning behind the concern of needing space from one region then getting space from another region.

CW noted that draft policy 2024-5 suggests 4.4 space cannot be used out of region.

12. ARIN-prop-342: Require Newly Created AS-SETS to Have Hierarchical Names.

AW stated that this policy focuses on the creation of AS-SET names, and AT and AW have worked with the author to make it a suggestion instead of a policy. It has been submitted to the ARIN Suggestion and Consultation Process (ASCP).

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council rejects ‘ARIN-prop-342: Require Newly Created AS-SETS to have Hierarchical Names’.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

The Chair requested a detailed summarization of the rejection.

13. ARIN AC Working Groups.

• Policy Experience Report Working Group (PER WG) Update. AW stated that the WG had a meeting scheduled for this Friday, which will be rescheduled.

• Number Resource Policy Manual Working Group (NRPM WG) Update. BJ stated that they met with GG on Draft Policy 2023-8 to assist him and helped him narrow it down to one question. However, the narrowing down to one question did not change the community’s response at the ARIN 55 meeting. KP and LB went through a document where reassignment language may change and there was also a table topic. It appears like a non-issue at present, and this may be more situational.

14. Any Other Business.

• Changes in Employment and Affiliation. AT stated that she is now with a government body, but did not believe there are any conflicts.

• Lunchtime Table Topic Discussion Outcomes. CW stated that there was no discussion at his table on critical Internet infrastructure. KP also noted that there was not a lot of participation but plans on reaching out on the PPML to let the community know there is an opportunity for clean-up if they want it.

  GG noted that regarding the critical Internet infrastructure topic, there was a reasonable internal discussion on the current massive country power outages and what would constitute critical Internet infrastructure. He noted that the discussion leaned toward especially thinking about this as a larger whole (i.e., utilities used to support Internet infrastructure).

• New Proposals Received. The Chair stated that two proposals were recently received and did not make it onto this agenda:

1. ARIN-prop-343: Resource Issuance to Natural Persons. She noted that policy shepherds have been assigned (EG as primary and DC as secondary).

2. ARIN-prop-344: Clarify Justification Requirements for Reserved IP Addresses. She noted that the author proposed this as a new policy after much negative feedback was received on the initial proposal. Policy shepherds will be assigned.

   Regarding ARIN-prop-343, the President stated that ARIN has operated since inception as a business that serves businesses, not individuals. If that changes so that ARIN provides services to natural persons, it could affect ARIN’s tax and regulatory categorization, as governments treat organizations that serve consumers differently from those that only provide services to businesses. It would help to have a clearer problem statement to help with the staff and legal review.

   The Chair asked if the proposal is within in the AC’s scope. The President stated that it would be, but the language of the problem statement is important; and that the ARIN AC should request a staff and legal review as soon as it is accepted as a draft policy, as development of the staff and legal review will take time and external resources.

   AW asked why this is coming up and is so important at this time. The President noted that sometimes when a policy is introduced in other regions, parties introduce it in the ARIN region as well in order to strive for consistency across the RIRs.

   WH noted that the discussion on the PPML was less clear in the Caribbean countries than what occurs in the US and Canada.

Mr. Sandiford and Ms. Carter left the meeting at this time (2:30 p.m. ET).

• Possible Working Group. MW noted that there were some comments during the policy discussion at looking at other tools and how they might work with ARIN’s Policy Development Process. He suggested forming a new working group, possibly a “Community Engagement Working Group,” to address it. He noted that a charter would need to be drafted for the group.

  The Chair stated that it was generally understood that this is something that was desired. LB stated that it could be helpful for ARIN Fellows and their mentors, especially in relaying the information.

  The Chair stated that one recommendation was to create an email so that when an author requests help, one or two AC members would be assigned to assist new authors on what to expect during policy evaluations. It would then be up to the working group to decide the best approach (ex., work with ARIN staff for communication methods with the community).

  The President noted to the AC that any helpful information, such as how to submit a policy proposal, could be turned into a training module, and they should keep that in mind.

• AC/Board/NRO-NC Dinner. The COO provided information for the dinner at 6:00 p.m. ET to be held at the Coastal Kitchen Restaurant in the hotel.

15. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 2:20 p.m. ET. LS moved to adjourn, seconded by KP. The motion carried with no objections.