Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 17 September 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, PhD (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)
Gus Reese (GR)
Leif Sawyer (LS)
Alicia Trotman (AT)
Alison Wood (AW)
Matthew Wilder (MW)
Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

Michael Abejuela, CLO
Eddie Diego, Policy Analyst
Richard Jimmerson, COO
Jennifer Lee, Deputy General Counsel
Lisa Liedel, Director, RSD
Thérèse Simcox, Sr. E.A./Scribe
John Sweeting, CXO

Observers:

Nancy Carter, ARIN Board Chair

1. Welcome and Roll Call.

The Chair called the meeting to order at 4:01 p.m. ET. The presence of a quorum was noted via roll call. She welcomed Board Chair Nancy Carter and the Council to the meeting. She reminded the Council that this was their last meeting before their in-person meeting next month following ARIN 58.

2. Agenda Review.

The Chair reviewed the agenda and called for any comments. She noted items will be added to AOB for ARIN 58.

3. Approval of the Minutes.

(Exhibit A)

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the 20 August 2026 Minutes, as written.”

The Chair called for discussion. There were no comments.

The motion carried with no objections.

4. Changes in Employment and Affiliation.

The Chair asked if there were any changes to be reported. There were no changes reported.

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

LS stated that he was working on the slide deck for presentation at ARIN 58 and they will be reviewed by EG before forwarding to the Chair.

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

GG stated that after the last post he made to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML), an objection was received to the revision in the text regarding the protection to restrict a loophole. He found the objection unusual as it had not been raised in previous posts. He stated that the Policy Shepherds discussed it and have decided they will post the history of comments, pros and cons, to solicit further comments. He was unclear if the policy could be presented at ARIN 58 but would like to discuss it at that meeting if time allows, to let the community discuss it. He would like to post the history by the end of this week and update the slide deck before the deadline.

It was confirmed that the staff and legal review had been received. GG pointed out that the objection was received after the staff and legal review was posted to the PPML. DC noted that the objection was echoed by a number of people when it was expressed. It could be the objection may not be relevant. He pointed out that not moving the policy forward would delay it moving forward until next April (ARIN 59).

MW stated that the nature of the objection was that there should be no limit to out of region use, and the policy was written to reduce the restriction. He was unsure if the dissenters were aware of that point. He stated that it was not unreasonable to move it forward and to bring it to the ARIN meeting. The CXO agreed with MW stating it can be moved forward and if objections are not relevant the policy can remain as a recommended draft for further movement through the PDP.

KP suggested replying to the dissenters that it would be helpful for them to speak up at ARIN 58. DC suggested moving the policy to recommended draft status. If the objections are moot, it will then move through PDP by end of this year. If not, the AC can always revert the policy to draft policy status. There would be no harm done if the objections need to be addressed in the policy. MW noted that the statement of conformance would address those who were for and against, indicate if there was enough support, address concerns raised, and explain why the AC recommends it move forward. The Chair agreed that the statement must be included if the AC moves it forward and it must explain the reasons why. DC noted he would support moving the draft to recommended draft status if a motion was made.

GG stated that based on the trajectory the policy was on prior to the objection made, he supported moving it forward. WH pointed out that the policy shepherds came into this meeting not intending to move the policy forward and all of this change would be based solely on this discussion. He asked if there were an urgency that precluded taking more time. DC responded it was always good to pause and consider it, but he was of the mind that the draft policy was moving toward recommended draft status. He reminded the Council that it can be moved forward and also be reverted to draft policy with no negative effects, if needed. The policy will get the community’s feedback and that will determine its future status.

The Chair stated that she did not know of any urgency to move the policy forward and did not want to ignore the community. She asked GG if he planned on making any text changes to the policy. If so, now would not be the time to move it forward. If it was in its final form, then making a motion at this time would be acceptable. GG confirmed he did not intend to make any changes.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘Draft Policy ARIN-2025-3: Change Section 9, Out of Region Use Minimum Criteria’ to Recommended Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for any further discussion. GG stated that the language of the objection to the policy did not seem to sync with what the person was objecting to, and that was part of why GG wanted to discuss it further at ARIN 58 to gain clarity. One point the person raised was that ARIN staff was sufficiently aggressive in weeding out exploitation of the loophole. He looked at the language of their objection and how it impacts the policy. He stated he was amenable with the policy not moving to recommended status, but he was also not against it. He wanted to make sure the objection was considered.

CW reminded the AC that most of the time proposals are submitted to address operational issues and they deserve to be addressed. In this policy the issue in the problem statement needs a solution and he leaned toward moving it forward because policy should not sit still if it was not necessary. He pointed out that the community will still have the opportunity to provide their comments.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

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

LB stated that she was awaiting presenting the policy at ARIN 58 and was working with LS on slides for the Chair’s review.

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

KP stated that she reached out to the PPML for additional support before the ARIN 58 meeting. Feedback was received from two people with concerns and wanted to discuss how to address them. The main concern was that they did not see a need for the policy. KP looked at the Policy Experience Report (PER) presented a few years ago by the CXO. She asked if she could reply and point them to that presentation or possibly point them to ARIN staff. The Chair responded that KP should point them to the PER. The Chair also asked KP to please include the concern in the slides for feedback.

CW stated he knew of a new proposal that was on the horizon that may call for rewording of this policy to define out of region use. If the proposal was accepted, they can harmonize the language. The Chair reminded the AC that all policies are independent, and changes can be made later.

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

AW announced that the TIPTOP Working Group submitted their proposal to IETF and are moving forward with IPv6 only. They are targeting quick protocols for connectivity in outer space and reflecting that in the text of draft policy. AW made sure to point out that when the TIPTOP WG submitted the proposal, the IETF expressed their gratitude to policy shepherds, John Curran, and the community at large from the last ARIN meeting. She stated it was great working with the IETF. She noted that tremendous progress has been made in the last week and was happy to report it has been significant. She made reference to many emails that were part of the documentation on this effort.

The Chair stated that it may be helpful to provide a summary of the emails to the Council and PPML so that they are in the loop on the progress. CW wanted to verify if there was anything substantial in the current draft that would require modifications to the proposal as written. AW stated a few items: space needs to be allocated and how the proposal will move through the process. However, she pointed out that the biggest item was the removal of IPv4 space — as initially the author did want that removed.

The Chair noted that slides are due at the end of next week, and asked AW if she will have enough time to make the changes. AW stated they are done but the slides have not been submitted and she intends to do so in the next few days.

10. Draft Policy ARIN-2026-2: NRPM Section 6.5 Revision.

MW stated that they have the first ever policy-specific survey that has been launched and was open for two weeks. They will review the results and develop a plan for next steps on the policy moving forward.

The Chair was happy to hear the survey was out, noting it was an opportunity to get questions answered, and for the AC receive those answers and discuss the results. DC agreed stating it shows action on the items the community wants addressed. MW noted the time and effort taken to produce the survey and thanked ARIN’s communications team.

11. Draft Policy ARIN-2026-3: NRPM Section 6.4.1 Retirement.

EMB stated that ARIN 58 will be the first opportunity to present this policy to the community and the slides will be reviewed by GG before submitting to the Chair.

12. ARIN Draft Policy 2026-4: Harmonize Section 1 and Section 6, Principles and Goals Statements.

BJ stated that he and KP planned to present this policy at ARIN 58, however, he has requested a staff and legal review. He did not anticipate any pushback, but he wanted to make sure that the review does not show anything that they may have missed as a lot of wordsmithing has been done. BJ stated it was alright if the staff and legal review was not presented at ARIN 58.

13. ARIN-prop-353: Define Out Of Region Use.

GR stated that he spoke to the author and made an amendment to problem statement and posted the language to the AC Wiki.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council moves ‘ARIN-prop-353: Define Out Of Region Use’ to Draft Policy.”

The Chair called for discussion. WH referred to PDP 1.4.1 with concerns about the text shared with author, but he noted the problem statement was clear and he supported moving forward.