Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 22 April 2026

Face-to-Face, Louisville, KY

ARIN AC Attendees:

• Kat Hunter, Chair (KH)
• Lily Botsyoe (LB)
• E. Marie Brierley (EMB)
• Doug Camin, Vice Chair (DC)
• Gerry George (GG)
• Elizabeth Goodson (EG)
• William Herrin (WH)
• Brian Jones (BJ)
• Kaitlyn Pellak (KP) (via Zoom)
• Gus Reese (GR)
• Leif Sawyer (LS)
• Alicia Trotman (AT)
• Matthew Wilder (MW)
• Alison Wood (AW)
• Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

• John Curran, President and CEO
• Eddie Diego, Policy Analyst
• Matt Kalayjian, Assoc. General Counsel
• Jennifer Lee, Deputy General Counsel
• Lisa Liedel, Director, RSD
• Alyssa Arceneaux, Board Ops. Mgr./Scribe
• John Sweeting, CXO
• Joe Westover, Sr. Director CXS

Observer:

• Nancy Carter, Board Chair
• Tina Morris, Vice Board Chair
• Chris Tacit, Board Secretary
• Dan Alexander, Trustee
• Peter Harrison, Trustee
• Rob Seastrom, Trustee

1. Welcome and Roll Call.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:36 p.m. ET. The presence of a quorum was noted via roll call. She welcomed everyone to the call.

2. Agenda Review.

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. KH noted that GR is now the primary shepherd on ARIN Draft Policy ARIN-2025-6: Fix Formula in 6.5.2.1c (item 7).

3. Approval of the Minutes.

(Exhibit A)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the 19 March 2026 Minutes, as written.”

The Chair called for any comments. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Changes in Employment and Affiliation.

The Chair called for any changes. KP stated that she has officially rejoined Amazon.

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

LS stated that LIR was preferred, but clean-up will be needed and he will request a staff and legal review by the next AC meeting. KH noted that there was a suggestion for the acronym LIR to mean Local Internet Registry. LS stated he will expand on the definition in the first paragraph and then use the acronym throughout that section. EMB asked if it was possible to have a glossary of acronyms, but LS stated that there was no need as it will be defined at the beginning.

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

GG stated that they received very good feedback and, in general, they see support for the policy. For the few issues left, they plan to go back to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) to see if there are any suggestions regarding protections and they will reach out to the original author. KH stated that there was a call for comments leading up to the meeting, but she suggested that next time make it even earlier as there was no time to get the comments into the presentation for ARIN 57.

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

GR stated that the presentation provided to the community received clear feedback and as he has recently become the new shepherd of this policy, he will not be making any motion at this time.

DC shared concerns that the way in which the policy was presented challenged one of the tenets that must be followed, which is impartiality. As a consequence, it may lead to an abandonment of this policy on this ground.

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

LB noted a few more people providing comments. She stated that there is one minor edit to make on the policy and it will then be posted to the PPML for comments and to confirm support. If she receives support, she plans to request a staff and legal review.

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

KP complimented EMB for her first time as a presenter since KP had attended ARIN 57 remotely. KP stated that there was positive feedback at the meeting and that she had reached out to the PPML prior to the meeting with no response from anyone, including those that had previously provided negative feedback.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2025-8: Reserve 4.10 Space for In-Region Use’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2026-1: Taking IP To Other Planets (TIPTOP).

AW stated that most of the feedback from the community was to abandon this policy. She acknowledged that there were a few people that she spoke with that did not want to speak at the microphone but were still interested in the concept. She stated that she would like the opportunity to address some of the items that were identified by staff and legal.

BJ stated that he heard from multiple people wanting to discuss the topic further. KP noted that the zoom chat mirrored a lot of the comments in the room and agrees with the earlier statements here.

DC complimented the work done on this policy as the shepherd was not supplied much policy information by the author. He noted that it was nice to have some levity brought into the meeting with jokes made at the microphone but also agreed that some comments made went beyond this, and they appeared to not take the policy seriously which is challenging for the authors who put in significant effort to bring the policy forward.

EMB stated that the author had submitted the concept to other RIRs without response, and the concept creates a critical routing issue. She was worried that if the policy is abandoned there would be no one else to pick up the work. AW wanted to the support the community’s sentiments on abandonment but would like to do a bit more research.

AT thought the topic was interesting and was glad it was presented. She stated that she was unsure how long the community is going to want to hold on to it as the work would be done with no end sight. AW stated that she will work to keep this draft from floundering, but more time is needed.

CW agreed with the fact that the scope may be larger than just ARIN and may need to include all RIRs. He also noted this was something coming out of an IETF working group, so there should not be concern about it coming up again. It is unusual that it did not get raised at IANA first but went straight to an RIR, in his opinion.

The President & CEO stated that the author submitted a similar draft to the IETF TIPTOP WG for consideration. Its status moved from proposal to draft (accepted by the working group). There is a chance that this does not make it out of the WG the current document does not have IANA mentioned in it, and yet it appears that having a distinct IPv6 block from which to make allocations is the intention. The other detail is that the purpose for which this address block would be used does appear to warrant a new and different region, i.e., establishing a new RIR so that the affected networks can coordinate to develop an appropriate allocation policy and determine the desired registry services for their allocations. Instead, ARIN has been asked to consider it, so the policy staff and legal review details the items that need to be resolved for ARIN to serve in this role. AW noted that in speaking with the author, he did submit it to RIPE but had not received a response.

11. ARIN AC Working Groups.

The Chair called for updates from each WG and for a discussion of their respective table topics from ARIN 57.

• Policy Experience Report Working Group (PER WG) Update. AW stated that they have been working on a few things; and will focus on Section 6 for the time being. The AC will hear more about that in their meeting next month.

  • Discussion of Table Topic: Section 6 IPv6 Allocations.
    GR provided the following notes:

    • Key Points Made:
      • The table topic opened with the question, “What’s complicated about it?”, referring to Section 6 in general. Remarks touched on the initial allocation formula and its complexities. It was mentioned that staff does not exactly follow it.
      • A remark was made that NRPM Section 2.15 definition is not really a definition but an active policy that should be moved into Section 6 in some form.
      • Suggestion that perhaps a better way would be to work back from allocation to ISP, taking the opposite approach currently implemented today.
      • GR had made a comment regarding ARIN being the only RIR currently to use or to provide a formula for initial allocations hoping to spark discussion about the formula.
      • GR noted to “focus on the customer experience.”
      • Bill Herrin shared part of his policy presentation with the Fellows at the table topic session and their feedback was scarce, however one Fellow indicated that “You shouldn’t have to do a math problem,” referring to the formula in Section 6.5.2.1 for initial allocation.
      • Make policies that are simpler and reduce barriers to entry for IPv6.
      • Divorce v6 from v4 holdings (referencing 6.5.2.1).
      • Smaller ISPs getting smaller initial v6 allocations because of fees.
      • Suggestion for a working group for v6 adoption focusing on why the adoption rate is not as it should be in 2026, as well as solutions to overcome those barriers.

• Number Resource Policy Manual Working Group (NRPM WG) Update. BJ stated that they focused on three sections, ASNs, the last policy, and on Sections 4.8 and 4.6. A proposal was written to provide background and ways to consolidate in a way where ARIN would not have to look in multiple places.

  • Discussion of Table Topic: The Future of ARIN IPv4 Allocated Space LB provided the following notes:

    • A participant from the Caribbean telecommunications sector highlighted a tension between large and small organizations in the transition to IPv6, particularly in their region. Their key points were:
      • Policy should align with what an organization is actually built to run IPv4 organizations should receive IPv4 space, and IPv6 organizations should receive IPv6 space.
      • Without some form of enforcement mechanism, IPv6 adoption will continue to be treated as a suggestion rather than a priority, especially in developing regions.
    • A participant from academia raised broader questions about the efficiency and purpose of existing policy. Their key points were:
      • If Section 4.4 space is under-utilized, it is worth asking whether the section should simply be eliminated rather than preserved or expanded.
      • Any organization requesting IPv4 space should be required to demonstrate that IPv6 is genuinely insufficient for their needs, beyond basic or routine use cases.
      • Policy language should be written liberally enough to allow allocations based on what an organization actually operates, whether IPv4 or IPv6.
      • On the question of combining Sections 4.4 and 4.10, before any consolidation, an intermediate or transitional policy should be considered to identify and anticipate potential areas of abuse that could arise from collapsing the two sections together.

• Policy Engagement Working Group (PE WG) Update. MW stated that he had presented the working group’s update at ARIN 57 and was happy to see engagement there but wanted to be intentional about moving forward. One of the items is to try and get more participation. He noted they currently have around 40 participants, but he is hoping to get around 100 next time. He suggested conducting another survey before ARIN 58 or launching a new one at ARIN 58.

  • Discussion of Table Topic: Improving the Policy Engagement Experience AT provided the following notes:

    • Communication Channels & Platforms.

      • Email List (PPML) Engagement:
        • Feedback indicated that while some participants join the PPML, emails were moved to “To Be Read” folders and left unaddressed.
        • It was stated that the current “essay-style” structure of emails can be a barrier to engagement.
        • Participants suggested that platforms such as Discord would better facilitate real-time discussion and interactive dialogue compared to traditional email threads.
        • Benefits of Email: Conversely, some users prefer email as a “push” communication method, noting the convenience of information being delivered directly to them without the need to actively seek out updates.

      To increase the value of the PPML, and make the list “something to look forward to”, participants proposed the following enhancements:

      • High-Level Summaries: Inclusion of concise executive summaries at the top of long threads.
      • Interactive Polls: Integrating polls to gather quick community sentiment.

    • Proposed Initiatives

      • Office Hours & Policy Workshops: There was strong enthusiasm for the introduction of “Office Hours” and dedicated policy workshops.
      • Operational Clarity: Participants requested clarification on the leadership of these sessions—specifically whether they would be facilitated by the Advisory Council (AC) or ARIN staff.

    • Survey #2

      • To increase community participation, it was suggested that the second survey be released at an in-person meeting. It would also be helpful to present the community with new discussion tools options at that time.

  AT noted that it did not seem that many people saw the survey and suggested to launch it in a big way, as previously suggested by MW, possibly at the next ARIN meeting to bring more visibility to it.

  The President and CEO noted that the last survey went through a staff editing process. The President noted that there are no restrictions on the survey topics - staff editing was for clarity to avoid people abandoning it mid-survey.

  LB stated that if it was announced at ARIN 58, it would be a great way to get people to see it. People would want to add their comments. He suggested that there be a way for people to add in their comments in the next survey. AW suggested that if they do not use email, it can also appear on the website. EMB suggested that if we brought it to NANOG we should add a QR code.

12. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other business.

• Expense Report Reminder. Expense reports are due within 30 days after travel.
• AC Speaker Training. The Policy Analyst announced that after the AC’s meetings on June 18 and July 16, the training would directly follow from 5 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. ET. He stated it will be conducted in two parts. The Chair stated she has looked over the training materials and it looks very interesting and the timing is beneficial. AW asked if it can be recorded and asked to send out calendar invites to the AC to block their time
• Acronym Glossary. LS further addressed EMB’s suggested acronym glossary on the ARIN website and provided the link during the meeting.
• IPv6 Policies. WH stated that in looking at the IPv6 policies, Section 6 is badly written. The structure and language of the document is very hard to read. He asked if it would it be possible or helpful to get training on writing public policy. The President and CEO stated that ARIN staff will look into training for this but noted it may be simplest to add a few brief training slides in January on the topic of writing good policy text. EMB noted that technical/policy writing is complicated. MW stated that there may be some good prompts and tools that could be used.

13. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 1:31 p.m. ET. AW moved to adjourn, seconded by LS. The meeting adjourned with no objections.