Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 18 June 2026

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)
E. Marie Brierley (EMB)
Doug Camin, Vice Chair (DC)
Gerry George (GG)
Elizabeth Goodson (EG)
William Herrin (WH)
Kaitlyn Pellak (KP)
Gus Reese (GR)
Leif Sawyer (LS)
Alicia Trotman (AT)
Matthew Wilder (MW)
Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

John Curran, President & CEO
Eddie Diego, Policy Analyst
Jennifer Lee, Deputy General Counsel
Lisa Liedel, Director, RSD
Thérèse Simcox, Sr. Exec. Assistant/Scribe
Joe Westover, Sr. Director CXS

Regrets:

Brian Jones
Alison Wood

1. Welcome and Roll Call.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:04 p.m. ET. The presence of a quorum was noted via roll call. She welcomed everyone to the call and acknowledged regrets received.

2. Agenda Review.

The Chair reviewed the agenda with the Council and called for any comments. The Chair noted two updates to the agenda, that the staff and legal review for items 5 and 7 have been completed. She also stated there will be a break before beginning the training that will follow this meeting.

3. Approval of the Minutes.

(Exhibit A)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the 21 May 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. None reported.

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

LS stated that he received the staff and legal review on 15 June. He reviewed it with EG and noted that the suggestions may or may not be outside the scope of the problem statement. They will address what can be addressed and move forward.

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

GG stated that the original Policy Author sent a follow up post to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML) with some proposed changes. Positive responses were received. GG stated he will post to the PPML next week for final comments. He noted that comments come from the same group of people and there is general support for the changes. It was confirmed that since an additional restriction was added, he will need to request another staff and legal review.

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

LB noted that she received the staff and legal review. She stated there was support in the room at ARIN 57, and one suggestion from online was received and addressed.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2025-7: Make Policy in 6.5.8.2 Match the Examples’ to Recommended Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with all in favor, via roll call vote.

The Chair called for a conformance statement to be sent to the Policy Analyst.

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

KP stated that they are waiting to present at ARIN 58 in October.

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

Noting that the policy shepherds were not in attendance, the Chair stated that there were no updates at this time and that the policy shepherds are continuing to work on it.

10. ARIN-prop-350: NRPM Section 6.5 Revision.

MW stated that this proposal was received in May but there were renumbering changes made to the section. He noted that generally renumbering sections can be problematic however, in this case, it is of subsections within section 6.5 and he was comfortable taking it to the community.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘ARIN-prop-350: NRPM Section 6.5 Revision’ to Draft Policy status.”

The Chair called for discussion. WH agreed that the proposal meets the requirements to move to draft policy status but was concerned about the draft sections being renumbered for consideration as work proceeds. He stated that the draft would require applicants to prepare and provide a network plan containing specified characteristics, including hierarchy, which he viewed as more onerous than the requirements under current policy. He also stated that he had not heard community members express a desire to make obtaining IPv6 address space more difficult for applicants.

WH further suggested that if a section is being rewritten, this would be an opportunity to merge ISP and end-user for IPv6 allocation policies. He asked if they are that different that they need to be separate — or at least explain why it was not a good idea.

MW explained that this proposal came from the PER WG, but that he would keep these comments in mind. He noted it remains to be seen if it will be more onerous and that both staff and the community will have the opportunity to provide their comments.

With regard to merging the two policies, MW noted it would need further discussion as ISPs are required to register reassignments, but end-users are not. WH noted end users do not have reassignments to register. MW agreed but stated the question is how that requirement can be split off and merge them as much as possible. He agreed it is something to explore.

CW stated it was unclear what is being modified in section 6.5 and asked if there are sections of end-user allocations that will remain unmodified. It states that 6.5.1 to 6.5.7 only are to be modified and not the entire section 6.5. MW stated that section 6.5 includes IPSs and end-users. CW asked for clarity that this is only intended to change the ISP allocation section and leave the end-user section untouched. MW stated that was correct. MW stated that the changes are up to section 6.5.7 only.

The Chair stated that the title of the policy can be modified in the draft stage of the Policy Development Process (PDP) but suggested to consider leaving it as changes to other sections can then be made if needed.

CW posited that in lieu of rewriting the sections, add another level to the numbering such as 6.5.1.a, 6.5.2.a., if it will work. The Chair stated that can be worked into the draft and noted that there were good points made.

KP stated it appears that 6.5.7 might be overwritten. MW confirmed that they are doing so. They held off on moving the policy forward because it all pertains to allocations. KP stated that it was not clear at first that it was being replaced. The Chair stated that all policies will have a redlined version to compare to the edited text.