Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 September 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 (KK)
  • 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
  • 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 4:00 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 LS, and seconded by LB, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the 21 August 2025 Minutes, as written.”

The motion carried with no objections.

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

CW stated that the staff and legal review was received last month but the AC needed time to review. He stated that sufficient time has passed.

It was moved by CW, and seconded by WH, 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. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

The Chair asked CW for a conformance statement, and he acknowledged.

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

LS stated that the Policy Shepherds applied the notes from ARIN 55 to the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) and posted the new version to Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). Comments on the PPML were against what was heard at ARIN 55. LS stated text will go back to the definitions of ISP and LIR and get closer to what will be accepted by the community. ISP is to be kept consistent with business practices and kept aligned. The Chair asked if there was an appetite to using “LIR/ISP”. LS stated that was the term originally used, and the community did not want that term.

DC noted that a handful of vocal members does not reflect the community as a whole. The text was proposed and changed based upon on the feedback received at the ARIN 55 microphone and then new feedback online was received. It may be more efficient to be definitive on the purpose and reasons of the changes. A rationalization of the changes would be helpful for the community.

The Chair asked where the definition of ISP was derived. DC noted it came from staff. The Chair acknowledged and further noted that staff wrote an article on the difference between LIR and ISP. DC stated that a justification of what has been done presented at the upcoming ARIN 56 would be beneficial. He volunteered to present the matter.

CXO stated that customers request resources either as an end-user or an ISP, not as an LIR. That is hard coded into ARIN’s ticketing, website and documentation.

EG observed that what was said at the ARIN 55 meeting cannot be linked to comments made on the PPML. CW believed it would be helpful to go back to the ARIN 55 comments and relay them to the PPML for context and arguments made to make PPML posters better informed when stating opinions.

GG asked whether a reference to LIR excludes ISP in any way but noted that the CXO had just explained that and it almost throws LIR out. GG pondered that if ‘LIR/ISP’ was used as a reference, whether that would further confuse the issue?

LS stated they can try to further clarify it, and he will review the video from ARIN 55 for his presentation. GG suggested that we are aiming to use LIR as opposed to ISP and maybe flip the terms to see if it removes objections. LS stated that the current policy proposal states to replace all mentions of LIR with ISP and our definition will explain that LIR is ‘equivalent’ but not used in the ARIN region, rather than converting all instances of ISP to LIR. LS stated that there is nothing we receive from ARIN that has ‘LIR’ used in application or response.

KP asked if it would be feasible to make changes without adding a definition for ISP. It seems the community is getting caught up on the definition of ISP rather than the actual changes. LS noted it was an interesting viewpoint. KP stated it has already worked well for the rest of the NRPM, and this is only in part of the document. Whenever we create a new definition, people cannot agree. LS stated we can consider it as an option at the meeting. The Chair noted that BJ posted the LIR definition in the chat.

CW asked if there are calls for using LIR? If that happened, would all the references need to change as well? CXO stated that changes would need to be made in several areas and that additional training would need to be completed for all RSD analysts. ISP is used exclusively by the registration services team.

KK stated that to request resources from ARIN, ARIN Online shows LIR/ISP is being used. Maybe the community is forming their comments from this fact. The CXO stated then both terms should both be in the NRPM, but that ISP is the preferred term used by registration services.

The Chair read the text from ARIN Online to which KK referred, to the AC. She asked if LS could use that text found in the ARIN Online dashboard. She noted it is part of the ticket flow. The CXO confirmed that having both terms is not a problem, but getting rid of ISP would be a problem.

WH stated that what he is hearing is that harmonizing ARIN activity on a term other than ISP will be expensive. That should be part of the discussion on PPML as well.

DC believed this was being over thought. There was text stating the two terms were interchangeable. Do you want LIR/ISP, or just ISP? In either case a definition should be documented, and the community should vote on it versus them individually speaking at the microphone. It should be feedback from the community.

The Chair asked that LS please let her know ahead of time in order for Communications to set up the question in a questionnaire so that a community vote can be made.

DC stated that a last alternative option is to revisit the text and do something else. The CXO stated what is hard coded in the system should be reflected in NRPM. It should match what is in the ticket flow. DC believed then that his previous stated suggestion will determine the direction it will go, and if it fails, we have the feedback.

The Chair suggested that LS match the definition to the ticket flow to clarify any confusion. LS stated they will go back and look at it. He had two questions: 1) Should the definition be aligned in NRPM to LIR, or ISP, or both? He stated that everything requesting LIR will be used for ISP as it is the business practice. The CXO answered that it is hard coded into the system. 2) Would changing everything to use ‘LIR’ require that requests outside of policy be in the ARIN Consultation and Suggestion Process (ACSP), or can it be done via policy? The CXO replied that if you are changing the NRPM, then do it through policy. If you are changing it for the purpose of how staff processes the request, then it would be a change to business practice, re-education of staff, and having staff use the requested term. He noted that ARIN has many customers, and this would be impactful.

The Chair stated the question of using LIR/ISP or ISP is what should be put forth to the community. We are only changing one part of the NRPM.

GR stated that the text is posted on the PPML for feedback at this time. He will try to foster more discussion, and the policy will be presented at ARIN 56.

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

DC stated that the policy is awaiting presentation at ARIN 56.

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

KP stated that the PPML is either against or ambivalent, and there are currently other policies in flight that do what this policy proposes to do. She has spoken with author and suggested to cancel it and submit one directed to Section 9. The author was amenable to dropping the policy and was not interested in submitting another policy.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council abandons ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2025-5: Clarify Justification Requirements for 4.4, 4.10, 6.10, and 11.10 IP addresses’.”

The Chair called for discussion. She stated that there will be a table topic on out-of-region use and there are other policies on docket about this topic.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

The Chair requested KP provide a statement of abandonment.

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

WH stated that there has been very little discussion on the PPML, and he did not see a way to foster more discussion. Any responses he received were tepid. He stated he is looking for more feedback at ARIN 56 and would like to take a poll during presentation. He suggested the following questions be presented: Should we: change the formula, remove the formula, rewrite the section for clarity and drop the formula, or abandon the proposal and leave things as they are as it has not caused a problem thus far.

He asked for any comments from the AC. AT suggested to only ask the first two questions, as too many choices will not garner constructive feedback. CW asked how WH planned to do the poll – by a show of hands or incorporated into the presentation. The Chair stated they are usually conducted by a show of hands. She stated it should be kept to the first two or three questions. She believed the fourth question was unnecessary. If you had an idea of what the policy would look like without the formula, it may help to clarify it for the members. WH stated he had done that, and it was not small number of changes. He did not believe it would helpful. The Chair agreed. She asked what if it was dropped and rewritten? WH stated that is how ARIN implements the policy and how it works.

The Chair asked staff if a show of hands could be conducted on the questions. The Policy Analyst did not see why not but he has not seen one done. The CXO stated this is the reason we have meetings. Explain that if customers use the formula, we need to correct it to get the correct amount of space they need, and then they could use it.

The General Counsel asked if the AC would know how they want to proceed with the responses they receive. There is no issue with asking the questions. Staff can poll them in the room and online, but questions need to be straight forward. Also, will the responses to the questions provide information helpful in your debate on the policy afterwards?

The Chair stated to WH that we will work on the best path forward and it may be a table topic as well. The CXO noted that staff does not use the formula, but it is possible that customers would if it were corrected. The Chair stated they will work on all of the considerations.

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

LB stated that it has been very quiet, and she will do one last post to the PPML. She will be presenting it at ARIN 56.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2025-8: Reserve 4.10 space for In-Region Use.

KK stated that he is presenting the policy at ARIN 56. The Chair stated that he may also receive useful information if he participates in out-of-region table topic.

12. ARIN AC Working Groups.

  • Policy Experience Report Working Group (PER WG) Update. AW stated that there were no updates and was looking forward to ARIN 56.

  • Number Resource Policy Manual Working Group (NRPM WG) Update. BJ stated that there were no updates and that he too was looking forward to ARIN 56.

  • Policy Engagement Working Group (PE WG) Update. DC stated that the WG met and will meet again next week on what questions to ask community and what tools to use. They found that the manufacturer of one tool they wanted to use is not taking new customers. Their goal is to have the table topic at ARIN 56 and to have a feedback questionnaire after the ARIN 56 meeting.

13. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other business.

  • Changes in Employment and Affiliation. None reported.

  • ARIN 56 - Arlington, TX. The Chair reviewed the following items with the Council:

    • Presentation Deadlines.
    • Text Freeze: 30 Sept.
    • Table Topics: 03 Oct. Please email the Chair to volunteer for BJ’s table.
    • Policy Slide Decks.
    • Decks will be prepared and sent to Policy Shepherds ASAP (ETA: 19 Sept.)
    • Notify Policy Analyst which Policy Shepherd will be presenting ASAP via slack/email. If a Primary Shepherd cannot attend ARIN 56, make sure the Secondary Shepherd is ready to present.
    • Decks due to Chair and Vice Chair: 26 Sept.
    • Decks due to ARIN Communications: 03 Oct. Policy Analyst or the Chair will communicate to the AC when the slide decks are solid. Please review the slides to ensure they are accurate.
    • Flight Itineraries. Please send itineraries ASAP if you have not already done so.
      Meeting Dates:
      NANOG 95: October 27 – 29
      ARIN 56: October 30 – 31
      The Chair noted the ARIN Social will be held on October 29.

  • ARIN 56 Registration. Chair acknowledged that all AC members are registered and thanked them for doing so.

  • Bios and Headshots. The Policy Analyst stated that 03 October will also be deadline for updating bios and headshots.

  • The Chair reminded the AC there will not be a formal dinner following their meeting, to accommodate AC members flights.

14. Adjournment.

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

Related