Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 December 2025

Teleconference

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
• Melissa Montgomery, Volunteer Support
• Therese Simcox, Sr. Executive Assistant/Scribe

Observer:

• E. Marie Brierley — 2026 AC Member-Elect

1. Welcome.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:05 p.m. ET. The presence of a quorum was noted. The Chair welcomed observer and 2026 AC member-elect E. Marie Brierley to the call. The Chair further noted Melissa Montgomery from ARIN staff, was observing the meeting as a back-up.

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 LB, and seconded by CW, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the 20 November 2025 Minutes, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

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

CW stated that there was a suggestion from the ARIN meeting in October that a focus group or panel be formed to get industry opinions that are not just from people on the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). He has not received many responses and will revisit the matter in the beginning of the new year.

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

LS stated that there were no changes at this time. He will resume working on the policy after the holidays.

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

DC stated that there were no changes at this time. He will resume working on the policy after the holidays.

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

WH stated that he sent an update to the AC’s mailing list yesterday clarifying that the text has not changed since the staff and legal was received or since the presentation was given at the last ARIN meeting.

MW stated he believed that there was still merit in exploring a few options before moving the policy forward, such as removing the formula. He stated doing so would be within scope and believed it was worth addressing at this time. WH replied that he has looked carefully at that option but stated that is not where the at-large consensus is, or what the original author wanted. He stated there is a complication in changing the policy versus correcting the error in the formula. He did not believe it was the correct approach. He asked if MW had another option in mind. MW did not and stated that he had not looked into what removing the formula would do to the policy. He still believed doing so was worth it versus engaging the community with more policy on the same topic.

DC asked what the impact would be to the policy if the formula was removed. WH stated that there may be a problem with implementation of policy in that the policy calls for ARIN to inquire about the size of downstream allocations to customers. Removing the formula strips the requirement and that would be a change to the policy and is beyond the scope of what this draft is doing.

MW stated that most entities would find it impossible to identify a single unit. He stated an example that a provider can allocate a /64 service and /56 and /48 by default. Some may not be practical. It did not bother him that it is not part of ARIN’s practices and believed it is not completely necessary.

WH agreed and stated that in terms of a follow-up draft, it should be in the next draft but beyond the scope of the current text. The Chair asked if another policy with a better problem statement would be a better approach. She stated that if we go down this path and it is not quite there, do we write another proposal with a better statement in mind? WH stated that the community wants a general rewrite, and this could use a review and update. The issue for this draft is that we do not know the results of the discussion and the development of this policy may not be complete until late next year.

DC looked at the problem statement. He stated that it does not specify the steps needed for resolution. If the resolution is to drop the formula, it does not look like it would be a problem. The pen shifts to the AC. He believed that going with MW’s previous comment, there is value in exploring it rather than a bigger process. WH stated that originally, the spirit of the text was to correct the formula. The community at-large was saying to go further but saying to correct it and come back and do something bigger. MW stated WH’s intuition to expand the problem statement was good and we are doing a service by doing so as proposals come in. DC agreed.

CW mentioned that the problem statement did not summarize what the changes to text accomplished. It is common for the author to summarize them, but there is no requirement to do so. He noted that nowhere is the author required to state what the changes accomplished. WH asked for clarification. CW explained the text changes the formula but does not say what are the calculations under the old formula and the new formula. It would be beneficial if it can be explained, but a substantial section of the community will not understand looking at the formula itself. WH stated that there were two items: 1) raw numbers of customers produce “net mass,” and 2) provider assignment units get placed everywhere in the NRPM (Number Resource Policy Manual) rather than in one place. CW stated that someone only looking at the draft policy is not going to understand this nuance. It is not in the proposal text. He noted that Policy Development Process (PDP) does not require it, but it is helpful when authors summarize the changes. It is a convention not a requirement in the PDP. WH acknowledged.

WH stated he will ask the AC that if any of them wants to see more changes, please let him know and discuss them with him. He does not see a way to modify this one.

MW suggested that WH can abandon the policy and submit a new proposal. There is going to be more work on this, but you are coming at it as a more complete solution. WH thanked him.

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

LB stated that feedback was received from the PPML with an edit, and the team will make the changes and submit them to PPML for further feedback in January. They will then request a staff and legal review.

9. Draft Policy ARIN-2025-8: Reserve 4.10 Space for In-Region Use.

KK stated that feedback was received from the PPML, and he did not believe the text can advance based on said feedback. It will need to be revised. He thanked KP for her work on the text and asked her if she had comments.

KP stated that they received concern regarding ambiguity of the language. It appears the community is not aware that we are trying to further restrict Section 4.10. Do we want to ask them if they want 4.10 to continue with in-region only restrictions? If not, we can make it more explicit.

WH stated that he read the feedback which basically wanted to remove all restrictions on where the 4.10 was employed globally. He thought the draft intended to restrict it in the ARIN region and was unsure that this is the right draft to do it, if that is what they want globally. It sounds like a reversal of what was heard at ARIN 56.

KP suggested going to the community and ask if they want it out of the region and suggest abandoning this policy eventually. We can ask the community if someone would like to submit a new proposal.

The Chair pointed out that if there was no time gap between the ARIN meeting and the PPML feedback, this policy would have already become a recommended draft policy. She agreed that the opinions are polar opposites from the ARIN meeting to PPML feedback. She would like to push the PPML for further feedback. KP stated she would be happy to keep posting to the PPML for feedback. She did not like the idea of the reversal of opinion as the abuse on 4.10 space will worsen. She stated she can post the question “Do you think this needs to be reversed and removed from regional restrictions? If so, would someone like to submit a proposal to that effect?” She noted other questions would be, “Do you want it to be more explicit?” She stated she can make it clear that restrictions in 4.9 do not supersede restrictions in 4.10. KK agreed.

GG noted there was potentially a lack of clarity. Generally, we do not rewrite the problem statement, but we can add clarity. The Chair agreed stating that if we clarify to help the community better understand, it is not a rewrite. She noted this can only be done while the policy is in draft status. KP stated that she did not previously include the problem statement and will do so to remind the community.

10. ARIN AC Working Groups.

• Policy Experience Report Working Group (PER WG) Update. AW stated that the WG will not meet in January but are continuing their work.

• Number Resource Policy Manual Working Group (NRPM WG) Update. BJ stated that there was no update at this time and the WG is awaiting the new year to be involved in clarifying efforts.

• Policy Engagement Working Group. (PE WG) Update. DC stated that the WG have been working, met a few times and collected feedback. They drafted a survey of nine questions for the community to find out if certain actions would be helpful. They received staff feedback on some of the questions but need more information on the AC creating focus groups for policies and/or a regularly scheduled policy workshop. He was seeking feedback from staff.

  The General Counsel provided guidance on focus groups and discussed the importance of making sure staff is always involved for consistency and stability. He cautioned on targeting only certain groups and reminded that potential exclusionary issues should be considered when planning activities, as well as being conscious about keeping discussions open so that anyone can participate.

  DC noted a policy for which they were discussing a focus group for DNS providers. General Counsel stated to be careful to not limit from whom you are seeking feedback. We do not want to give preferential treatment to any one group. It should be more of a feedback mechanism.

  AT asked if we need a name change, and expand the invitation to those who can attend? General Counsel answered yes. It should be coordinated through the Policy Analyst to help communicate that there is a feedback mechanism, much like a table topic without an ARIN meeting.

  The Chair stated that she did not want to impact staff more than needed and the WG can use timeslots from the other WGs and their members to be the team to listen to feedback. It would be consistent. General Counsel appreciated her comments and noted that staff is available to assist and support the AC so as not to overtax the AC members.

  MW agreed the name “open forum” would be beneficial. He stated that focusing on technical soundness and how we advance policies would resolve the concern.

  AT stated asked if there was a legal requirement to post reporting from the meetings to the PPML? She noted that table topic discussions are not posted. Would staff or AC be responsible to do so?

  The Chair stated that if there is a lunchtime table topic regarding a policy currently under discussion, she requires a posting of what it was about to the PPML. It is technically just a talk, but it is a way to communicate the discussion. For our discussion groups, it should be on the PPML so that they can further discuss it and decide if it is a good idea. The Chair liked “open forum” for the name. General Counsel stated it creates the transparency that we want and staff should coordinate.

  DC appreciated the feedback and stated they will wordsmith the survey. Staff can fit questions in on AC engagement. He wanted to be sure it’s a two-way street if the AC decides to take something on. The Chair agreed they should revise the questions and resubmit them for review.

11. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other business.

• Changes in Employment and Affiliation. None reported.

• 2026 AC F2F 30 January San Francisco, CA.

  • Itineraries for 29 January to 31 January 2026 are due to staff no later than 20 December as the rooming list deadline is fast approaching must be submitted to the hotel. Please provide itineraries to staff asap.

  • 2026 AC Chair Election Process Overview. Policy Analyst provided an overview of the election process to the Council.

  • 2026 AC Training. Staff is working on scheduling public speaking/conflict resolution training to be held in February or March directly following the AC regularly scheduled meeting.

  • Mentors. Mentors will be needed for the April ARIN 57 meeting. She noted if anyone would like to be a mentor, they can always contact staff early.

12. Farewell to AC Member.

The Chair acknowledged that this was KK’s last AC meeting as a member of the AC. However, he will not be “going anywhere.” KK agreed and stated he will continue to be an active member of the ARIN community and enjoyed his experience on the AC tremendously. The Chair thanked him for his time and dedication to the AC, and also as a friend to all of them, joking that he was not going anywhere because he was not “allowed to leave.”

13. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 5:01 p.m. ET. DC moved to adjourn, seconded by LS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.