Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 31 October 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) - virtual
  • Kaitlyn Pellak (KP)
  • Gus Reese (GR)
  • Leif Sawyer (LS)
  • Alicia Trotman (AT)
  • Matthew Wilder (MW)
  • Alison Wood (AW)
  • Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

  • Alyssa Arceneaux, Board Ops Mgr./Scribe
  • John Curran, President & CEO
  • Eddie Diego, Policy Analyst
  • Richard Jimmerson, COO
  • Jennifer Lee, Deputy General Counsel
  • Lisa Liedel, Dir. Registration Services
  • John Sweeting, CXO
  • Joe Westover, Dir. CXS

ARIN Board Observers:

  • Nancy Carter, Chair
  • Tina Morris, Vice Chair
  • Dan Alexander, Trustee
  • Rob Seastrom, Trustee

1. Welcome.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:45 p.m. CT. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair stated that she found the ARIN 56 meeting very productive and helpful.

2. Agenda Review.

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. The Chair noted that KP will provide the update on KK’s policy.

3. Approval of the Minutes.

(Exhibit A)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the 18 September 2025 Minutes, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

CW stated that this policy did not have much encouragement from the community and there were a number of comments of people who were in favor of the intent but had significant concerns about the language in its current state.

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. DC stated that one big issue in the discussions was seeing if there are experts that could be used to help with the language. CW stated that there are two specific experts needed in redrafting the text, one on ISP operators and one on the DNS side. He noted that the DNS side appears to be the portion that needs the work done to better define the language.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

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

LS stated that unlike the outcome at ARIN 55, everyone does want the term ‘LIR’ to be used, and he is going rewrite the policy to include ‘LIR’ and will send it to staff and legal for review.

The CXO noted that it is not going to matter to staff which term is used. GG stated that in the discussions there seemed to be a focus on the wrong thing – the community is focusing on the term used and not necessarily the content. He believed that changing the term does not change the content of the policy. EG stated that once the work is done on the definitions it will affect many items down the road.

The President stated that in theory there is no change, but in practice, once you drill down, it could reveal an issue. The Chair stated that when this first came out, it felt like “ISP/LIR” bridged the issue for the group, but the community did not agree. DC stated it’s going to be a challenge regardless, but there may be a way to get the community to support the policy. MW stated that one of the objections to switching to using only the term ‘LIR’ was that it makes the guide less accessible. LS noted that is why there are definitions listed at the beginning of the document. MW suggested that it may be a good idea to list them here again if users do not revert to another section.

GR stated that this policy was presented to the community. He noted the change to the policy is fairly innocuous and the presentation had the best participation of any policy he has presented. The majority overwhelming supported this policy (63-4-1).

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2025-2: Clarify 8.5.1 Registration Services Agreement’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

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

DC stated that community feedback received was very constructive and reflected the policy continue to be worked on and that there were some clarifications of use cases where the policy would be useful. DC and GG will review feedback and come up with changes based on the feedback. GG stated it was a very rigorous discussion. The Chair noted that one of the Fellows suggested to look into a percentage usage that would then cover a use case which she thought it was a good suggestion. MW stated that a portion of the resources are being used in the region with a slight risk of shell companies being in use.

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

WH stated this is not based on the table topic or the conversation at the microphone, but one group indicated that this looks fine and to get it done. Another other group believed it should be fixed, but the section needs to be rewritten. He stated he will post this feedback to Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) for feedback from any virtual participants. MW stated that he had no objections at this point, but he would need to see some community support. DC agreed.

WH stated that the draft policy would go forward as-is, but he would create a new draft policy that would fix the other issues. MW asked WH if he sees it fixing the problem statement and if not, then it may be better than rewriting the policy. WH stated that there was consensus on this policy but not on the next rewrite. CW asked if it would it be in line with the problem statement and WH replied that it would. WH stated that in keeping the formula there was a question if the formula was correct. MW believed that more people wanted to get rid of the formula.

KP had two questions: 1) In a follow-up policy to rewrite the scope, would it reflect Section 6.5.2.1 or all of Section 6.5? WH stated it would reflect the specific sections. 2) In the staff and legal review, would they be checking the formula? The CXO stated that the formula is confirmed by the staff and the author.

AT stated there were more people who wanted the formula removed. DC stated that in looking over the text, he was unsure if the formula adds anything to it and noted that the formula does not change anything. The Chair stated that the text was fine for her when applying for IPv6 space. WH stated that when he first received the policy, he thought both the text and the formula were difficult but believed that the formula adds a second option. AW felt the general community consensus supported removing the formula. CW agreed and stated that most believed that this is the only place where a formula is indicated. GG stated that if the text could be cleaned up, the formula could be removed. DC stated that he does not know if he could support the policy with the formula left in the text.

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

LB stated that there was not much support and she is going to post the feedback to PPML to see if there is a possibility for edits. KP added that one of the edits expressed was that the single site should be used more to make it clearer.

The Chair stated that the contributions made by the Fellows has been exceptional.

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

KP stated that this policy was very well received by the community and will be moving forward. She formally requested a staff and legal review. The Chair agreed that it was very clear that everyone was generally in support of the policy and asked KP to make her request via email.

11. ARIN-prop-348: SPARK (Starter Pack for ARIN Resource Kit).

BJ stated that the intention of the author is to make a bundle to acquire all different space needs at the same time. BJ stated he discussed this with the CXO and this may be able to be handled internally. The author might want to file a suggestion for this functionality to see if there is community support.

However, the CXO and the President stated that either way this proposal is out-of-scope.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council rejects ‘ARIN-prop-348: SPARK (Starter Pack for ARIN Resource Kit)’ as out-of-scope.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

The Chair reminded BJ to provide a statement of rejection. The President stated to offer the recommendation of a suggestion when sending the statement.

12. ARIN AC Working Groups.

  • Policy Experience Report Working Group (PER WG) Update. AW stated that a new policy report has just been provided and the feedback looks good. The WG will move forward.

  • Number Resource Policy Manual Working Group (NRPM WG) Update. BJ stated that the group is not currently working on anything but standing by if anything comes up and hopefully not to rewrite the whole manual. The Chair noted that this WG has been very helpful for many getting their policies moved forward.

  • Policy Engagement Working Group. (PE WG) Update. DC stated that there are some actions coming out of the policies presented earlier and the tabletop-discussions. He stated that he hopes to meet soon to go through the comments that were made at the table topics and believes there to be a clear path moving forward.

13. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other business.

  • Changes in Employment and Affiliation. AW stated that last week she was selected as a Trusted Community Representative back-up on the IANA DNSSEC.

  • Table Topic Discussions.

    • Policy Engagement WG. AT stated that there were some statements and recommendations and a good mix of people at the table. One of the Fellows mentioned that they had difficulty joining the PPML and that it can be disheartening and often forgets to rejoin. Another comment was made that if there is a topic they are interested in on the PPML they end up copying and pasting into AI to gain a summary of comments. It was also suggested to have training videos or webinars on how to craft proposals with a link to create the proposal (what is accepted and the criteria). Another suggestion was to have a Policy Development Process (PDP) course on the ARIN educational website and, for certain policies, have Zoom workshops with focus groups that would filter back to the PPML.
      B elaborated that these Zoom workshops would happen prior to a draft becoming a proposal and would allow for further exploration of the topics. DC stated that generally the AC is aware that all of the items being worked on go to staff in some way and we want to work to ensure that these suggestions are feasible. LB also stated that there was a suggestion on reusing some of the content from the Fellowship Program sessions. The Chair agreed on tapping into pre-existing content. Sr. Director CXS noted that the PDP is on the list to provide instruction. KP reminded the AC that the PPML archive should not be forgotten and can be extremely helpful. This may need to be mentioned to the Fellows. The Chair noted that some are using AI to find out how a policy would change with the suggestions being made.

    • Out-of-Region Use. EG and BJ stated that this table topic was less productive. BJ said that there was mention of keeping within the region was the right move and believed it was the consensus. EG stated there was much discussion on what is the point of ‘in-region’. GG was engaged with some of the discussion and stated that there was talk about allowing smaller companies to access the resources. One of the points that was brought up was the use of geolocation and why is this being done – let the free market decide. Free markets may not always benefit those in need, but he believed that there will be a lot of interest. KP noted that the other RIRs do have geolocation (using country codes) and there is a geo-field in the RIR network objectives which was accepted into the RDAP. The President stated that at ARIN, ISP and users may differ on what they want listed as geolocation (as a statement of fact, or what you want people to believe). MW stated that the RIRs do not have a way to see the ISP in use in their region.

    • Section 6 IPv6 Request Formula. The Chair stated that any language used at table topics cannot be taken as fact but can be posted on the PPML to get consensus. WH went through the policy and the questions that appeared at the end of the presentation and at the table topic discussion. His impression was that there was consensus that it is acceptable, but it was also agreed that it needs to be rewritten.

  • NANOG Presentation Update. MW stated that the presentation went very well and it was a great opportunity to see why ARIN wants NANOG involved. There was an appeal to look at the policies for technical soundness. The presentation gave an overview on the policy process and policies that would be presented this week, which was very useful. GG agreed and it was a great initiative. It provided good engagement which was impactful. The Chair agreed. LS stated that having it presented in the main room was really useful. BJ noted that it was helpful for the Fellows to hear about the PDP in person.

    The President stated that ARIN will relay this feedback to NANOG, but it will be helpful to fill out the NANOG survey if you liked a session during their meeting. DC agreed that this could be helpful, and this is an action that could be taken and make a standing action. KP stated with regard to filling out the survey, she was happy to see that the ARIN presentation was moved to earlier in the day. ARIN Board Vice Chair noted how valuable the surveys are in getting into the NANOG program. CW agreed stating that there was a robust discussion on continuing in the NANOG program.

  • Future AC Meetings. The Chair gave kudos to the candidates regarding their videos and wished them all good luck. She asked the AC to look at schedules and meetings for next year and to be ready to discuss them at a later date. DC asked about AFRINIC’s governing Board and attendance by ARIN volunteers. The COO noted that there will most likely be one public meeting and they will have to determine attendance of staff and volunteers.

  • ARIN Fellows. GG brought up the Fellow selection and noted that, as a mentor, there was less work for him to do because of how great the Fellows were, and how he would love to see that continue. ARIN Board Vice Chair stated that she believed the work staff has done to recruit and educate the Fellows is working very well. AT stated that she would love to see statistics on the Fellows engagement after going through the Fellows Program.

14. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 2:16 p.m. CT. AW moved to adjourn, seconded by CW. The meeting was adjourned with no objections.

Related