Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 July 2025

Teleconference

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

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela, General Counsel
  • Regi Alancia, Mgr. CXS Business Process
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Richard Jimmerson, COO
  • Jennifer Lee, Deputy General Counsel
  • Lisa Liedel, Dir. Registration Services
  • Thérèse Simcox, Sr. Exec. Assistant/Scribe

Regrets:

  • Matthew Wilder, Vice Chair (MW)

1. Welcome.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. ET. The presence of a quorum was noted. She acknowledged regrets from MW, Vice Chair. She stated that LS would be acting Vice Chair for this meeting.

2. Agenda Review.

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. GG requested moving item 4 to later in the agenda. The Chair agreed to add it as new item 8.

3. Approval of the Minutes.

(Exhibit A)

It was moved by LS, and seconded by LB:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the 26 June 2025 Minutes, as written.”

The Chair called for comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

Discussed below.

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

CW stated that revisions were made to the text and posted to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) last week. There have been no responses to date. He stated he will foster discussion on the PPML next week. He also will request a second staff and legal review and review the results and decide further actions for the AC’s next meeting.

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

AT stated that the text was updated and included feedback from the last meeting but has not sent anything to the PPML or the website yet. She will be posting it by tomorrow and will look for feedback next week.

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

LS stated that the policy shepherds continue working on removing ‘LIR’ from Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM), noting there are many instances of the term.

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

GG stated that he posted to the PPML to solicit responses, following the previous summary at the end of June. However, the responses have been slow. He noted that here is no contention with the quality of the text, however feedback is leaning toward a ‘do nothing’ position and he may consider suggesting abandonment. He will monitor the PPML and if there are no further comments by the next AC meeting, he will suggest abandonment subject to discussion by the AC.

The Chair requested GG send a post to PPML to inform the community that the policy is heading in that direction and include the reason. GG agreed to do so within a couple of weeks and see if any further comments arise.

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

GR stated that there were no updates at this time. He stated that he had intended to send a post to the PPML, but there has been a lot of discussion on Draft Policy 2025-4, therefore he decided to wait and send a post next week.

DC stated that there were no changes at this time, and he too was waiting for PPML discussions to subside on 2025-4.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2025-4: Resource Issuance to Natural Persons.

EG stated that she posted to the PPML last week to ask for clear and concise feedback on whether to continue work on this draft policy or to abandon it. She confirmed that there has been much discussion on the validity of the problem statement with people asking if there is a problem and is this the right way to correct it.

The President stated that some questions about the potential policy impact would involve spending members’ money to answer them, and we need to modulate how much we invest at this point for a draft policy that is not yet in recommended draft policy status. We will attempt to do a strawman, but it will not be informed by experts. In general, changing from a business-to-business organization will require us to restructure some statements and reports about ARIN to various government entities, and it may change our regulatory and tax treatment.

WH stated that he had sent an email to the AC earlier asking if we can dive deeper into ARIN’s current practice — is ARIN impartial. It hinges on whether or not the current practices are getting the job done.

The President stated the current practices are that we treat individuals as sole proprietorships, get their identification, and where they are located. It has never been a challenge. In some states where one is using their name, they have to register as a sole proprietorship. In the Caribbean we have not had many requests. It may be that it is not a problem, but we do not know if they have regulations elsewhere. We have not had a case where a person has not been able to make it work.

It was brought up that there has not been an individual who could not obtain resources. It was noted that this has been about the problem statement and if there is even a problem to be solved. People are being treated equally. It points to other policies with regard to justifications. The AC needs to focus on the problem statement. If an individual comes in, they are treated as a sole proprietorship and are relied upon to come forward within the legal regulations that apply to them. Is there a real problem? Are individuals being denied? It was believed that there is a path forward for them.

WH mentioned that people get finicky about what is fair and what is unfair. Once folks decide that something is unfair, there is no pragmatic argument you can make to convince them otherwise. His concern is that maybe we need a better answer than saying no one has been denied from getting resources.

The President explained how someone gets resources. If individuals are using addresses to connect infrastructure to the public Internet, then they have operating expectations. It is a cooperative venture with all others who are running infrastructure and is more than just receiving an AS number or address block. For a private person, it means they take on responsibilities to be part of this project and be publicly known, and thus they are acting as a professional in a public endeavor. That is why it is fair and reasonable. That person is joining the cooperative venture to keep the Internet running, even if activity involves no payments or customers, they are still acting in professional capacity in a shared activity, and it is perfectly reasonable for them to be consider a sole proprietorship for that purpose.

GG agreed and stated that there were some discussions on the PPML claiming a monopoly on the issuance of IPs by ARIN and potential threats to business operations. The best posting was one that said that someone does not absolutely need assets from ARIN if they are not running a business, as they can obtain IPs from their upstream. Consequently, ARIN does not have a monopoly on that.

The President stated it is not uncommon that trade associations provide services to an entire sector. To those who that say they cannot get addresses, do they actually have a need for public IP address space? If so, the burden to obtain number resources is extremely low. We serve natural persons in the capacity of those requiring public number resources to participate in the public Internet, and that is a not a private activity. Should the proposed policy be adopted such that we serve natural persons as consumers, we make any necessary changes such as regulatory, governance, and possibly Bylaws changes.

12. Draft Policy ARIN-2025-5: Clarify Justification Requirements for 4.4, 4.10, 6.10, and 11.10 IP addresses.

KP stated that she was happy to have received feedback from the PPML, but it was mostly negative. One person was not in favor of the draft policy, and she asked if they thought it could be edited to make it more palatable. They said no. There were two adamant responses against the policy. KP stated she would like to get more feedback and noted that one person has proposed better language. She would like to review it to see if there are edits that can be made with the author. Specific points were raised, and she was not sure if there was a better way to reach a compromise.

KP further stated that one person took issue with the problem statement in that it is technically incorrect. They said we are not modifying Section 11.10 but rather we are creating it. She was unclear if it is a significant item and if we really need to change ‘modify’ to ‘create’. CW stated that the AC avoids making substantive changes in problem statements after a proposal is accepted onto the docket, but he did not feel that this change would be substantive. KP asked if creating versus modifying is an editorial change. CW believed it appears it would be an editorial change and would not change the intent of the policy. KP agreed. CW explained that the intent of the rule against changing a problem statement is not to make changes to the author’s pen, but this change would not do so.

KP stated that she will reach out to the author to wordsmith the text and post it to the PPML. The Chair suggested that she can also reach out to the NRPM WG for any assistance.

13. Draft Policy ARIN-2025-6: Fix Formula in 6.5.2.1c.

WH stated that he managed to get two people to respond on PPML. He stated that the original policy’s author agreed that the current example formula in NRPM Section 6.5.2.1.c is incorrect, and that the proposed formula is correct; and another person agreed as well. He noted a mismatch in the terminology that needs to be fixed and he will make the edits.

14. Draft Policy ARIN-2025-7: Make Policy in 6.5.8.2 Match the Examples.

LB stated that there are no changes at this time, noting that it has been very quiet. She is awaiting further feedback on the PPML.

15. ARIN AC Working Groups.

  • Policy Experience Report Working Group (PER WG) Update. AW stated that the WG met and are working on out-of-region use cases, a report on 4.10 space, and 4.1.8 space and sent a post to the PPML about it. She noted that the WG is doing very well. She stated that if there are any clarifications on prop-347, the WG is here to help.

  • Number Resource Policy Manual Working Group (NRPM WG) Update. BJ stated that their last meeting was cancelled. An email on Section 6 was posted to the PPML, which has not received any responses to date. He stated that the WG is looking for other items and to please reach out if anyone has a need.

  • New Working Group Update. The Chair updated the Council on this new WG stating that the official name will be the Policy Engagement Working Group (PE WG). She stated that other names were discussed, and they wanted ‘policy’ in the name so as to not overlap with work that staff engages in with the community. She noted the acronym is similar to the PER WG and stated that they will use the titles to the extent possible to avoid confusion. The WG’s charter has been sent to legal for review and has been approved. The group can begin meeting next month.

    The Chair asked if the ARIN Board needed to also approve the formation of this new WG. The President stated that if the group is entirely internal to the AC, no approval from the Board is warranted. If it is charged with items outside of the work of the AC, to acting on behalf of AC, or independently of AC, then the Board would need to approve the WG. The President stated he will review the charter with General Counsel. The Chair acknowledged.

16. Any Other Business.

  • Changes in Employment and Affiliation. None reported.

(DC left the call at this time 4:51 p.m. ET.)

  • ARIN 56 Arlington, TX. The Chair reminded those attending NANOG to register and to let staff know even if you are not attending so that staff can tighten up the rooming block and get an accurate account of travelers.

  • Fellowship Mentors. The Chair stated that mentors are still needed for ARIN 56. Interested AC members can reach out to CXS Project Manager, Amanda Gauldin.

  • Travel. The Chair reminded the Council to plan travel for NANOG 95/ARIN 56. Staff will book hotel rooms for both meetings if you are attending both.

    Meeting Dates:
    NANOG: October 27–29
    ARIN: October 30–31

  • 2026 January AC Face-to-Face Meeting. The Chair stated that the AC has chosen San Francisco to hold their January 2026 meeting, which would be held on the 4th Friday of the month, per the AC’s Standing Rules. That would be on January 23, 2026. However, she stated that NANOG 96 is being held one week later, Feb. 2 to Feb 4, 2026. She asked the AC if they would like to move their meeting to Friday, January 30 to avoid double travel costs for those attending NANOG 96.

    The President stated that the Board has yet to determine where and when they are meeting in January and whether or not it will be adjacent to the AC’s meeting. This matter will be discussed in a few weeks at the Board’s August Workshop.

    The Chair asked for a show of hands to move the meeting date which resulted in all being in favor of doing so.

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

    “The ARIN Advisory Council moves to change the date of their annual face-to-face meeting from 23 January 2026 to 30 January 2026, as long as it is not cost prohibitive as determined by the ARIN Board of Trustees.”

    The motion carried with all in favor, via roll call vote.

    The President stated he will present this matter to the Board.

17. Adjournment.

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

Related