Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 21 August 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)
  • Matthew Wilder (MW)
  • Alison Wood (AW)
  • Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

  • Michael Abejuela, General Counsel
  • Eddie Diego, Policy Analyst
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Richard Jimmerson, COO
  • Jennifer Lee, Deputy General Counsel
  • Lisa Liedel, Dir. Registration Services
  • Marty McLaughlin, Manager CXS
  • Thérèse Simcox, Sr. Exec. Assistant/Scribe
  • John Sweeting, CXO
  • Joe Westover, Dir. CXS

1. Welcome.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:03 p.m. ET. The presence of a quorum was noted.

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)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the 17 July 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 his last post to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) received two lackluster responses which led him to determine that other than protection of those on the waitlist, no one is interested in moving this policy forward with regard to changing /22 to /24. Due to the lack of interest, he stated he would move to abandon the policy. GG noted it has been out for discussion on the PPML for quite a while.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2023-8: Reduce 4.1.8 Maximum Allocation’.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

The Chair requested that GG post a notice of abandonment to the community. GG acknowledged the request. The Chair also noted that should this become an issue the community wants to have addressed, another proposal can be drafted.

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

CW stated that the staff and legal review was received just prior to this meeting. He believed the policy has community support but has not seen any specifics on the latest version. He stated his intent to move it forward to get community feedback once again in its current form.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2024-5: Rewrite of NRPM Section 4.4 Micro-Allocation’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. WH asked if the AC should move the policy forward before the staff and legal review has been posted to the PPML for comment. The Chair agreed noting the review was only just received today, and wondered if there were any issues with it. She was concerned that the AC has not had time to review the results.

CW withdrew the motion. The Chair seconded it stating that moving the policy forward will be addressed at the AC’s next meeting.

KP noted the revisions to this policy technically impact her policy (ARIN-2025-5) with regard to Section 4.4 and her policy contains text for special ARIN allocations. She noted this version of the policy has language regarding reserving space for critical infrastructure. KP asked for guidance on how to handle ARIN-2025-5.

The Chair noted that ARIN-prop-347 also touches Section 4.10. She stated that each policy is treated individually. It may be prudent to eventually abandon or consolidate policies in the future. Regardless, always look at each policy or proposal individually. Treat them separately and if the community is leaning in one direction, then the text can be revised to be in sync. This can be determined as the policies are reviewed.

MW suggested that the default may be that if two policies affect the same section, whichever one gets moved to recommended draft policy first, put the other in a holding pattern and wait for the recommended draft to run its course.

CW stated that once a policy is in recommended draft status, the language is fairly stable. Once one policy is in that state, then other policies would best be served to be crafted with the understanding that the recommended draft will make it through the process. The other policies can be adjusted if not.

KP stated that it appears this policy is doing what her policy is doing with respect to Section 4.4 and wanted to compare the language.

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

AT stated that there was robust discussion on the PPML, and it appears that the community believes it is a theoretical scenario to go from 7 days to 14 days at this point, and there is not any support for the increase in days. AT stated her intent to move to abandon this policy.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2024-10: Registration Requirements and Timing of Requirements with Retirement of Section 4.2.3.7.2’.”

The Chair called for discussion. The Chair agreed stating this was a prior policy that had been rewritten. At the time, the community was behind it, but the problem statement has changed, and she has seen that people are more against it than in favor. CW agreed.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

The Chair asked for an abandonment statement. AT acknowledged her request.

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 have replaced the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) term of ‘LIR’ to ‘ISP’ and are looking at it to see what is ‘broken’. He noted and apologized for delays. The Chair acknowledged, stating that she fully understood.

GR stated that after the AC’s last meeting, he posted to the PPML and received a question for staff which has been answered. He is monitoring the PPML for any further feedback and will hold the policy for presentation at ARIN 56 in October.

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

DC stated that he posted to the PPML and received positive feedback in support of this policy. He is holding the policy for presentation at ARIN 56 in October.

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

EG stated that she posted to the PPML and reviewed 118 messages, with 60 received after the staff and legal was posted. She stated it is an even amount for and against the policy in the last postings and a handful of respondents were interested in what this would cost. Some conversation on the PPML was had on abandonment of the policy. There has been no consensus on this policy, and there does not appear to be a path forward.

The Chair had genuine concerns outside of the PPML feedback before this was accepted as a draft policy. She believed this policy was out of scope without Board consideration as this directly impacts ARIN’s business practices. To wait longer is another month where the author would have no input into the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP). She believes the ACSP is the best path for this policy and appreciates that EC is trying to get feedback. The Chair stated that this policy will be hard to move to recommended draft status, and it is not looking positive. There are a lot of financial and organizational concerns in addition to other issues.

DC agreed with the Chair and noted that the because the policy had strong community feelings from both sides it was worthwhile accepting this as a draft, getting it to the PPML for discussion, and having a staff and legal review conducted. However, from that feedback it is evident there is no consensus, and given the significant additional hurdles revealed in the staff and legal review, he agrees this should be shifted to and would be more appropriate in the ASCP process. The implications are too significant, and many aspects would be Board decisions. DC was in favor of abandonment.

CW also agreed with the comments made. He echoed the concerns raised and noted the one that he focused on was the lack of consensus and the substance of the arguments for or against the policy. He noted it was challenging for him to ascertain how much a change in circumstance or new information would change anyone’s mind that would move the policy one way or another. As such, he did not see what would change in a month. He believed that the same feedback as before would arise regarding cost, which cannot be projected. CW stated he was in favor of abandonment.

WH believed that given the volume and character of the feedback, it would be inclusive to present the policy at ARIN 56 before any motion is made in order to get feedback from additional community members at the meeting. He stated that he is also sitting on suggested revisions to the policy and if there comes a time to do so, he has no shortage of ideas.

The Chair noted that no motion has been made thus far and called for any further comments.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2025-4: Resource Issuance to Natural Persons’.”

The Chair called for discussion. KP noted that presenting the policy at ARIN 56 for discussion might be beneficial as those who attend the meetings tend to be different than those who participate on the PPML. However, she noted that it was repeatedly asked on the PPML for thoughts on the impact from this policy, and only one person responded. She expressed her conflict between presenting it at ARIN 56 or moving to abandon it.

The Chair noted that the one person who responded was impacted 10 years ago, and things have changed since that time. KP stated she was interested if anyone at the meeting would state they were impacted, but that may not warrant waiting.

DC noted that the AC accepted the proposal after ARIN 55 and never presented it at a Public Policy Meeting. Considering this, he supported letting it be presented for a full cycle. His opinion could go either way and he did not believe that presenting it would change the outcome, but the policy would be put through all the steps of the process.

WH responded to the comments on the person who was impacted noting the situation now may or may not be the same. That person could not register under his business name as there was no DBA listed. There have not been other people negatively impacted but there have been many theoretical statements regarding the law. It is hard for us to say whether or not those objections are valid.

The President stated that WH is correct, and it is theoretical in every jurisdiction of a country. There are a breadth and width of possibilities. We have not had any cases, and he believed that at this time this is a proposed policy to solve a problem that we cannot discern still exists. If there was no cost to implement this, he would be more receptive to it, but it definitely will have an impact to ARIN and could impact all members due to tax policies for consumer services – impacts that do not seem warranted given the lack of an identifiable problem today. The Chair agreed noting that policy cannot be made on a theoretical idea.

AT stated that between having a policy on the PPML or getting further opinions, she would be in favor of presenting it at ARIN 56.

MW believed the benefits of presenting the policy outweighed the drawbacks. He was not in favor of abandoning the policy. It may help to surface the issues for the community’s understanding.

KP suggested perhaps it would be helpful if ARIN could provide a ballpark of the financial impact. The President explained it would entail spending more than routine amounts of money to outside professional firms to determine implementation impacts and costs, and ARIN cannot spend out-of-year dollars speculatively on proposed policy. At a minimum, we are aware of a letter on ARIN tax treatment that would become invalid, and would likely result in collecting taxes on all Canadian customers and possibly all customers. It would require expert engagement to require understanding the full scope of the impact, including legal work regarding handling of what would now be deemed personal consumer data.

ARIN is a business entity serving businesses and changing this would require significant assessment and substantially change our practices. Governments treat business to business organizations quite differently from those that face consumers or individuals. KP acknowledged.

The Chair stated that she is on record that she had initially voted against this policy becoming a draft policy, as it is out of scope for the AC. She appreciated the desires to get it in front of the community, but it should not have been a draft policy.

The Chair called for a vote on the motion to abandon.

The motion carried with 12 in favor and 3 against (WH, AT, MW).

The Chair requested a statement of abandonment. EG acknowledged the request.

The Chair thanked EG for all of the work she had put forth on this policy.

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

KP noted other policies in flight that would impact this policy and vice versa. She was torn between contacting the author to recommend removing Sections 4.4 and 4.10 from the policy; or, if it would be better to suggest that the author submit a new policy instead of making multiple edits making references to special allocations.

The Chair stated that the pen is in KP’s hand, and she can change what she would like; but it is good practice to let the author know her intent. The Chair asked if it would change the problem statement and KP stated the statement does make references to each section regarding reserved or special allocations.

MW suggested another option may be reasonable if there is a way to put the idea in Section 9. It would need a staff and legal review but would be worth doing. The Chair stated it was a good point to bring it to author to get it moving forward and potentially abandon this policy with the understanding of writing another one. KP agreed and will contact the author before any abandonment is made. She agreed it seemed the clearest path forward.

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

WH stated that there was no activity this month and he will post to the PPML to get discussion moving. If there are no responses, he will make minor changes and present the policy at ARIN 56. He acknowledged the policy does not appear problematic nor does it generate much excitement and was unclear whether to move it forward or abandon it.

The Chair stated that it does need a staff and legal first. If there are no issues and there is consensus before the AC’s next meeting and is in time for ARIN 56, he will have a staff and legal review conducted to present it at ARIN 56 and get feedback. Then it can move forward. The Policy Analyst confirmed that the last date for a staff and legal review before the ARIN meeting is 03 September.

KP suggested that it sounded like a good table topic discussion or lightning talk for NANOG 95. MW stated he can present the policy at NANOG. KP stated she believed many may not be familiar with the subject and are hesitant to comment and perhaps NANOG participants may have more attendees familiar with the topic. MW agreed. The Chair stated she would like to see how often staff uses the formula. The CXO stated that RSD does not use the formula and instead follows the text to determine the appropriate size IPv6 block to allocate. The Chair questioned whether that section of policy needed to be there?

WH stated that he wanted to post three ways to deal with it to the PPML: change the formula as proposed if there is agreement, remove the formula and rely on text, or remove the formula and clarify the text without changing what it does.

The Chair stated this may happen between now and the meeting. She stated that GG is very good at looking at all scenarios. It may be worth another post to the PPML with those options.

CW stated that based on what CXO said, he was curious what the criteria is and if there is a divergent process followed by staff, that the policy match practice. If by analysis we feel it is contrary to the intent of the policy, then should we address it. The CXO clarified that staff follows the text of the policy, and it is easier to do. Staff does not use the policy in determining the appropriate size block. He stated he will add slides to the Policy Experience Report (PER) for ARIN 56 to share how RSD determines the right size address block.

WH pointed out that when the AC received the proposal, staff did explain how they did it and conveyed it to PPML - that is the explanation. The CXO confirmed that the explanation provided is the way RSD reviews IPv6 requests. It follows the text, and it is easier for both the customer and the RSD analyst to understand. GG stated that if any help is needed, he is willing to assist. WH thanked him.

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

LB stated that there is no update at this time. She will post again to the PPML.

14. ARIN-prop-347: Reserve 4.10 space for In-Region Use.

KK stated that he believed the problem statement is clear, but before advancing the proposal, he noted the comments made previously about this section. The Chair stated the problem statement is in scope and clear and follows the criteria. She stated that even though KP has a policy with 4.10 in it, it does not mean we cannot move this proposal forward.

CW stated that he is the author of the policy, on behalf of PER WG, and there is a conflict between it and 2025-3. However, the proposal meets the criteria and once accepted, we can discuss it’s advancement in light of 2025-3’s progress. We can merge them or do whatever is needed.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Councils moves ‘ARIN-prop-347: Reserve 4.10 space for In-Region Use’ to Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

15. ARIN AC Working Groups.

  • Policy Experience Report Working Group (PER WG) Update. AW stated that the WG is all caught up and has a policy in motion.

  • Number Resource Policy Manual Working Group (NRPM WG) Update. BJ stated that the WG met and discussed items with KP’s policy and that policies 2024-5, 2025-5, 2025-3 all have out-of-region discussions around them.

    KP stated her question was around the policy author’s boilerplate language for all sections. It is unclear if it would be necessary to use that space for global anycast for it to be valid for IPv6 transition. We are clarifying this.

    The CXO stated that we would not approve that strictly for transition for IPv6, it has to be technically used for translation protocols — IPv4 to communicate with IPv6. We cannot use ‘dual’ for customers.

    MW stated that the only use case for special use IPv4 space is DNS. Section 4.4 space maybe, but not in Section 4.10. KP asked if it would be beneficial to specify that in the policy. The CXO responded that ARIN is clear and tells customers that it is not available for that space.

  • Policy Engagement Working Group. (PE WG) Update. DC stated that the WG had its first formal kick-off meeting. They are awaiting feedback from legal on the finalization of their charter and then will be fully established. They have meetings set between now and ARIN 56 to identify vehicles and tools to solicit and engage the community in different ways beyond the PPML (new technologies, tools, or paths that meet the same standards for archiving ability to be referenced, etc., and overcoming challenges with PPML).

    AT stated they are also thinking of having this as a table topic if the Chair and AC agree. The Chair agreed. CW stated they are going to discuss this in their meetings between now and ARIN 56.

16. Any Other Business.

  • Changes in Employment and Affiliation. CW stated he has a new affiliation with David Siegel Consulting as a consulting contractor.

  • ARIN 56 Arlington, TX.

    • Fellowship Mentors. Deadline for volunteering is tomorrow — Friday, 22 August. One more mentor is needed. KP volunteered. The Chair thanked her.
    • Flight Itineraries. Please send itineraries no later than end of August/as soon as possible. Meeting Dates: NANOG 95: October 27–29 ARIN 56: October 30–31
    • Registration. Registration opened 19 August. The Chair noted that 14 out of 15 AC members are registered.
    • Post meeting AC F2F. The Chair reminded the AC they are meeting face to face after the close of ARIN 56. There will be no formal AC dinner to accommodate those who need to fly out that evening.

17. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:22 p.m. ET. LS moved to adjourn, seconded by GG. The meeting adjourned with no objections.

Related