Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 15 May 2025

Teleconference

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)
• Kendrick Knowles (KK)
• Kaitlyn Pellak (KP)
• Leif Sawyer (LS)
• Alicia Trotman (AT)
• Alison Wood (AW)
• Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

• Michael Abejuela, General Counsel
• Eddie Diego, Policy Analyst
• Richard Jimmerson, COO
• Jennifer Lee, Deputy General Counsel
• Lisa Liedel, Dir. Registration Services
• Thérèse Simcox, Sr. Exec. Assistant/Scribe
• John Sweeting, CXO

Regrets:

• Brian Jones
• Gus Reese

1. Welcome.

Welcome. The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. ET. The presence of a quorum was noted. She acknowledged regrets from BJ and GR.

2. Agenda Review.

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)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the 30 April 2025 Minutes, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

GG stated that the intention was to draft a summary of all comments received and to post them to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). He stated it is taking longer than expected to ensure that there is no duplication of information, and he is also working on some items to update the docket. He stated that he will post the docket updates, and the summary of comments received as one post, to avoid confusion and keep the discussion focused. He hoped for a meaningful path forward.

The Chair acknowledged that an update to the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) had been done prior to the AC’s last meeting, and she recognized GG’s efforts in coordinating his work with the updated NRPM text.

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

CW stated that he is currently working on updates to the text, per community feedback. He asked the AC if there is anywhere in the NRPM that authorizes an organization’s request for space being contiguous (ex. can you ask for /23 and return existing /24). He stated it is required for IXP space, and we would need a provision for it. Can it be codified in policy? WH stated that NRPM Sections 12.6 and 8.5.6 discuss renumbering. CW stated he will read those sections. He noted that in addition, the IXP community has also provided feedback, and he will incorporate it.

The Chair stated that any discussions that have occurred during the ARIN 55 would be useful information for the PPML.

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

AT stated that a summary has been posted to the PPML and the policy shepherds are awaiting feedback.

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

KP stated that the policy shepherds are awaiting the staff and legal review.

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

LS stated that the policy shepherds have been unable to touch base and they will work on it in the coming month.

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

KK stated that they are awaiting the staff and legal review. The Chair noted that the staff and legal review was just received today.

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

DC stated that there were no updates at this time.

11. ARIN-prop-343: Resource Issuance to Natural Persons.

EG stated that the author responded yesterday, and the language has been updated with a new definition and other terms.

It was moved by EG, and seconded by DC, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council accepts ‘ARIN-prop-343: Resource Issuance to Natural Persons’ as a Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. The General Counsel asked the AC to review the text to ensure it is within scope per the Policy Development Process (PDP). He noted that at this stage in the process, the AC is not looking at the merits of the proposal, but whether or not it is within scope. He stated that Section 2.2.2.3 of the PDP discusses scope, and he reviewed the section with the Council. He noted that this proposal may be more appropriate for the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP) as it appears as a suggestion to increase, amend, or add a service ARIN provides. The General Counsel discussed the purpose of the PDP and pointed out that the proposal would likely increase risk to ARIN. He used RPKI as an example, in that the decision to provide RPKI services did not come from policy. It came from the community wanting it as a service, and policy was subsequently made related to it.

The CXO explained that this was a problem at one time. People wanted to get resources as a natural person without being a business. The problem was solved by recognizing sole proprietorships that are recognized in the legal jurisdiction in which they operate and located within the ARIN region. We have not heard from anyone having difficulty meeting the qualifications of the region in which they operate. We have a number of sole proprietors that are currently registrants.

WH stated that he is a sole proprietor and has had negligible issues with ARIN as such. He noted that policy is supposed to define under what conditions resources are granted. There are reasonable concerns from ARIN, and we have to be able to deal with entities within legal parameters. However, he stated that the overarching question of who is qualified really should be a policy rather than an operations matter. He was not in support of the text as proposed, but he believed it should have a fuller discussion.

General Counsel stated that he appreciated WH’s feedback and agreed that policy dictates requirements that one must meet. He stated that if there was an operational decision to offer services to individuals, then the AC could have a policy for it. He noted that the point is well taken, but it appears that the proposal contemplates offering a ‘new’ service.

CW stated that there was a lot of discussion on the PPML. To the CXO’s comments, CW asked if the CXO would be comfortable stating publicly that this has not been an issue and sole proprietorships have been supported. The CXO replied yes, noting that ARIN has been supporting sole proprietorships for at least eight years, if not longer. CW stated that if this is out of scope, there may be a need to state as such with the community. Counsel stated that staff and the legal department will help craft a very clear explanation if it is determined to be out of scope.

The COO thanked the AC for their careful consideration of this proposal. He noted to the AC that staff is not providing any comment on the merit of the proposal to influence the AC’s decision-making, and staff is simply providing background information to the AC to aid in their informed consideration. Ultimately, the ARIN Board of Trustees will consider this as part of ARIN’s business process. There is a path forward for this to be considered by the Board either by moving it through the PDP, or through the ACSP. He stated regardless of path, changing ARIN’s business practice to allow registration to natural persons would eventually be a fiduciary business decision made by the ARIN Board.

WH stated that he preferred the proposal go through the PDP. He acknowledged that in looking at community feedback, it appears there is not much consensus for it.

DC thanked the General Counsel for his comments and was comfortable with either the PDP or ACSP process as a way forward. He believed that if we were to provide more codification, it may need to start with the Board and then go to policy (which would be through ACSP). He acknowledged that there was robust discussion on the matter on the PPML even if not supported very much. He noted that if the AC rejects the proposal, it will need to have specific reasoning for the rejection indicating that the AC believes it should go through ACSP.

EG stated that if the AC believes this is a grey area when it comes to the PDP, then we are best served to request a staff and legal review right away rather than working on the text first. The CXO stated that he and the General Counsel would welcome a request for a staff and legal review immediately after adoption as a draft policy if the AC chose to do so. He stated that he and the General Counsel are not suggesting the direction that the proposal should take.

The General Counsel reiterated consideration is not based on the proposal’s merits but its scope, in accordance with the PDP. He stated that if the AC moves it to draft policy status, please request the staff and legal immediately. If it is determined to be out of scope, they will assist on any statement to be made.

DC stated that he is in support of the proposal and supported requesting a staff and legal review right away.

The motion carried with 10 in favor, and two against (LS, KH), via roll call vote.

The Chair requested that KP request a staff and legal review as soon as possible.

12. ARIN-prop-344: Clarify Justification Requirements for Reserved IP Addresses.

KP stated that she had questions for the author as he included text defining terminology for 4.4., 4.10, and 6.10 and she needed specifications from him. He wanted it added to the end of each section. She stated that she needs to make sure it makes sense. She also has concerns with some of the language stating to ‘codify ARIN staff current practices’ and noted that it was not relating to ARIN business. The author agreed to remove the terminology. She asked the AC for thoughts about his language being contradictory to language already in Section 4.4. Micro-allocation.

CW suggested if it could it be written so as not require the same language to be placed in different sections, but instead to be placed once in relation to relevant sections. KP believed it could be, but pointed out that this author submitted a previous policy and we indicated to him that it was best to put the edits in individual sections.

DC stated that he felt the suggestions just shared were about the format or approach of the text of the proposal, but if it is fundamentally technically sound it can be accepted and when the authoring pen shifts to the AC, those edits would be best brought forward with community input. Alternatively, the author could be given additional time to revise their proposal based on this feedback and the text could be voted for acceptance at a future AC meeting. CW stated that DC raised a good point.

The CXO clarified KP’s question of contradictory language. She thanked him for his clarification. WH stated that the policy shepherds have been struggling with the text for 2024-5 text as well, noting that clarifying the language so that it is not contradictory has been a challenge.

The Chair stated that her issue was using ‘normal and reserved IP space’ terminology in the problem statement and the community was very much against it. She suggested replacing ‘reserved’ with the relevant sections to clarify what the problem statement was trying to solve. She believed that, as a whole it is a great idea and worth moving to draft policy status, but the problem statement needs to be clarified first.

KP confirmed she would go back to the author. The Chair agreed, stating that the term ‘reserved IP’ should be removed and switched to those relevant sections. She noted it can be updated at a later time if needed.

CW agreed, noting that the AC generally does not modify problem statements once accepted to draft policy status, and it is best to clean up the problem statement first. KP acknowledged and thanked the AC for the discussion.

13. ARIN AC Working Groups.

• Policy Experience Report Working Group (PER WG) Update. AW stated that she reviewed the PER and out of region use, summarized it, and sent it to the WG. She noted the matter of abolishing the wait list and stated the WG has yet to discuss it. It is on Slack for the WG, and she will bring it to the AC to determine if there is support.
• Number Resource Policy Manual Working Group (NRPM WG) Update. KP noted that there was no participation at the table topic on IPv6 during ARIN 55. The Chair suggested that KP post a query to the PPML to see if anyone is interested in submitting a policy to update IPv6. KP noted the Chair had offered her assistance and thanked her.

14. Any Other Business.

• Changes in Employment and Affiliation. None reported.

• Reminder: Date Changed for June AC Teleconference. The Chair reminded the Council that next month’s June AC meeting is rescheduled to Thursday, 26 June, due to the U.S. Juneteenth holiday on 19 June.

• New Working Group. The Chair noted that at the AC’s last meeting they discussed community engagement. She and MW discussed creating a Community Engagement Working Group (CE WG) and decided it was a good idea. MW stated there will be approximately five AC members on the WG, the ARIN Policy Analyst, and one staff member from ARIN Communications.

  DC agreed to Chair the WG and stated that the first order of business is to have a specific charter that will not be rushed. It will be an exercise in understanding the community: what works, what does not, being inclusive, and getting input.

  The Chair stated the charter is being drafted, and it will be submitted to the General Counsel for review when ready.

15. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 4:59 p.m. ET. CW moved to adjourn, seconded by LB. The meeting adjourned with no objections.