Meeting of the ARIN Advisory Council - 23 October 2026

Miami, Florida

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) via Zoom
• Matthew Wilder (MW)
• Alison Wood (AW)
• Chris Woodfield (CW)

ARIN Staff:

• John Curran, President & CEO
• Eddie Diego, Policy Analyst
• Richard Jimmerson, COO
• Jennifer Lee, Deputy General Counsel
• Alyssa Arceneaux, Board Operations Mgr./Scribe
• John Sweeting, CXO

Board Observers:

• Nancy Carter, ARIN Board Chair
• Chris Tacit, Board Secretary
• Tina Morris, Board Vice Chair

1. Welcome and Roll Call.

Welcome and Roll Call. The Chair called the meeting to order at 12:38 p.m. ET. The presence of a quorum was noted via roll call. She welcomed everyone to the meeting.

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 LS, and seconded by BJ, that:

“The ARIN Advisory Council approves the 17 September 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. AW stated that she was promoted to Community Representative DNS in a security ceremony.

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

LS stated that there was overwhelming support for the policy in the room during ARIN 58.

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

“The ARIN Advisory Council advances ‘Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2025-1: Clarify ISP and LIR Definitions and References to Address Ambiguity in NRPM Text’ to Last Call.”

The Chair called for discussion. DC stated that he appreciated all of the work over the last two years and congratulated the policy shepherds on gaining consensus for this policy.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

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

GG stated that the response to this policy was very good. Since the last edits and objections expressed, there a good job of clarifying the text was done. He thanked DC specifically for his clarification posted to the Public Policy Mailing List (PPML). One clarification that may still be needed was in regard to utilization (80% of in-region usage to qualify). GG stated he will be listing this clarification on the PPML for reaction and feedback. DC stated that utilization was based on the percentage of ARIN holdings no matter where they were used and he asked if that counted towards the 80% and 50% thresholds? Would the text then indicate, in the context of these areas, narrowing the outer region? GG replied that the proposal did not change any requirements, nor change how or where resources were used. GG also noted that after the last meeting there was discussion regarding returning the policy to draft status, and there was no longer the concern to do so.

The Chair asked GG to be aware of timing the edits per the timeline of the Policy Development Process (PDP). GG stated that he would try to make clarifications and come to the next AC meeting ready to move it forward if applicable.

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

LB stated that this policy was interesting and had great support in the room at ARIN 58. Edits were needed and certain wording will be needed in the problem statement, with use of the word “receive."

The Chair noted that comments were made by a member asking if changes were editorial or not, and she asked the Policy Analyst to review the matter. There was discussion at ARIN 58 regarding moving the policy forward as written and that changes could be drafted into a follow-up proposal, rather than making the changes all at once. She noted that the vote in the room was in support of moving the policy forward as written, and the Chair did not want to discount the community’s preference. The Chair stated she was in favor of the changes.

MW stated that there was strong consensus in the room for the policy and no confusion of the intent. He noted it was within the PDP guidelines to make a minor change and proceed. WH agreed that it was a very small change with what was discussed in the room. MW clarified the process and stated that this was not a material change, but more of an editorial change and he will use the next month to wordsmith the text with the intent to move it to ‘last call’ at the next AC meeting.

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

KP stated that this policy had received substantial support both in the room and online during ARIN 58.

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

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

The Chair called for discussion. KP stated that there was a question about Anycast and her understanding of staff’s response. It was not IPv6 capable, but Anycast was mentioned because it was not being used in the ARIN service region. The CXO noted that if Anycast was being used in an IPv6 transition deployment, as long as it was announced in the ARIN region then it would be valid.

The motion carried unanimously, via roll call vote.

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

AW stated that she did not intend to make a motion. She noted that she not only presented the policy at ARIN 58, but also at NANOG 98 and had received tremendous community feedback. The biggest question asked was, “What was the endgame?” In her view, there were three potential outcomes: 1) it remained in the ARIN region — which was not likely; 2) a block would be administered, and celestial regions would be defined under each RIR; 3) an independent RIR would be set up. There were also some suggestions about policy and not operating in a “silo” and that other groups would have impact on the direction of the policy. AW further stated that the IETF was meeting next month on the topic. She stated she did not want this to become a “zombie policy” and she would work on the text to continue moving it forward.

The President stated that this was an open matter with other RIRs. There was a draft from the IETF about making a block and all of this will be discussed. AW stated that she would be very interested to be part of any working groups. The President noted that the challenge was that ARIN wants to facilitate whatever the community wanted to do without encouraging it into doing something. He noted that there was a fine line between encouragement and engagement.

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

MW stated that there were good discussions and feedback from the community. There was strong support to continue work and further simplify the text. He noted comments made regarding organizations that want a /32 should receive it if they ask for it. There were questions about resizing from ARIN and he wanted to make sure they were addressed. MW stated that he intended to revise the text and post it to the PPML for feedback.

WH stated that he put together a redline of the same section and asked when it would be best to post it to the PPML. MW suggested to wait for the PPML to weigh in on the current edits. The Chair suggested that it may be best to have a starter thread instead of inserting it into the current conversation for avoidance of any confusion.

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

EMB stated that there had not been any feedback on the PPML by the time she presented the policy at ARIN 58 but feedback at the microphone was positive and therefore she would request a staff and legal review.

The Chair stated that there were no comments on the PPML and it was nice that the community thought it was a great idea at ARIN 58 and not contentious.

CW asked about looking for similar language in the Number Resource Policy Manual (NRPM) that may be duplicative in nature on the RSA.

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

BJ stated that he had not yet received feedback on the PPML, but the policy received good feedback at ARIN 58. He stated that he would not be moving the policy forward at this time. He had received some good suggestions from the staff and legal review, and he would be working on them.

13. ARIN Draft Policy 2026-5: Define Out Of Region Use.

GR stated that he received valuable feedback from the room at ARIN 58, and he would be reviewing it. WH shared some comments and stated that he had only heard positive feedback on having a definition. He stated that he also heard that the term ‘Anycast’ should be not used. He believed that the text could use some wordsmithing, and this was noted by the community as well. CW noted that there may be some circular language.

14. ARIN AC Working Groups/Table Topic Overviews.

• Policy Experience Report Working Group (PER WG) Update. AW stated that after the CXO’s presentation at ARIN 58, a policy proposal was being put forward.

• Table Topic Overview at ARIN 58: TIPTOP (Taking IP to Other Planets). AW noted that the discussion centered on many topics related to the distribution of IP resources for the purposes of extraterrestrial uses.

  Topics discussed included:

  • Who should issue IP resources — an existing RIR or should IANA set aside resources for distribution to the RIRs for this purpose?
  • Overall consensus at the table was that each established RIR be allocated resources and then issue those resources to space agencies in each RIR service region and not task a single existing RIR with this function.
  • Whether a new RIR should be established for this purpose, there was no consensus at the table on this topic.
  • Discussion over the use of IP for the purposes of communications versus the proposed RFC 9171 Bundle protocol and the technical challenges each one has and what may be best for communication between devices with extreme delays.
  • Traditional routing protocols were delay-sensitive and worked well terrestrially. The proposed bundle protocol was designed for delay tolerant networking. Also, security concerns over an IP network were raised.
  • Main driving factor currently for IP versus Bundle protocol was the need for NTP.
  • How celestial bodies such as moons, planets, asteroids, and the Lagrange point were grouped for the purposes of allocating IP resources.
  • There was concern that not all stakeholders were being represented and a potential issue where one group of stakeholders was waiting on another group to make a decision.
  • TIPTOP IETF Working Group will meet in November 2026 for further discussion.
  • Overall sentiment was to take the current ARIN policy and send it to the NRO for distribution to the other RIRs.

  AW noted that the discussion at the microphone after presentation of ARIN-2026-1 mirrored much of what was said at the lunch table topic.

• Number Resource Policy Manual Working Group (NRPM WG) Update. BJ stated that they have been working on a policy to combine sections of the NRPM, but it was a work in progress.

• Table Topic Overview at ARIN 58: “If the Waitlist didn’t exist, what would?” BJ noted that discussions about how ARIN would handle the return of IP address space became a central topic.

  • There was much discussion around auctioning off IPv4 addresses after the topic was brought up. It was pointed out that there were legal and ethical issues to consider regarding what ARIN would do with the resources. There was discussion about how the money would be used if such a decision was made to auction off IPv4 address space.

    It was expressed that no new policy would have to replace the waitlist, that by default, ARIN would continue to allocate IPv4 address space out of sections 4.4 and 4.10 of the NRPM. IPv4 resources would be replenished with any returned or reclaimed resources to the reserved pools as was indicated by the NRPM.

  • There were also discussions about combining sections 4.4 and 4.10 of the NRPM and removing the waitlist while also relaxing the requirement for acquiring these resources concerning transitioning to IPv6. If relaxing the requirement, one must have an IPv6 transition plan to acquire any resources from this space by stating something like ‘with preference given for those transitions to IPv6’. The hard requirement for transitioning to IPv6 was brought up as an impediment for those who may not have the money for purchasing newer network equipment to support IPv6. At least in some Caribbean regions, it may take local government involvement before network operators can even consider moving toward IPv6. BJ believed this was expressed at a previous table topic discussion at ARIN 56.

    At least one participant asked if it was possible for ARIN to provide a report on where waitlist allocations go after they were fulfilled. Specifically, do they go to small ISPs, wind up in the market for leasing, or elsewhere? It was also mentioned that if an entity had a viable business plan that required IPv4 then they should have included the cost for purchasing or leasing those resources because the waitlist had no guarantees for available IPv4 resources. The question became, “Does there remain any reason to maintain a waitlist?”

• Policy Engagement Working Group (PE WG) Update. MW stated that the ARIN Communications team’s support with the WG’s work had been greatly appreciated. He also noted that the second survey, ‘Exploration of Adopting an Online Discussion Forum’, was currently open until 13 November, and he would appreciate the AC’s engagement. He was hopeful that by the November AC meeting, the group will be able to share the initial analysis.

  The President stated that when going through this process, there would likely be people who wanted to make sure that their contribution to the discussion was considered fairly. DC replied that the PPML and emails were the record of the conversation. MW stated they were also part of the survey conversation. The President reiterated that all contributions to the discussion needed to be documented one way or another.

  DC reminded the AC that the survey can be used as a tool for presenting policies.

• Table Topic Overview at ARIN 58: Policy Engagement. MW noted that the policy engagement table topic generated some very useful feedback from community members:

  • Comments were heard to the effect that email was not ideal for participants attempting to track a variety of parallel threads on one policy, which often result in a disjointed set of emails to navigate through.
  • Newer platforms which facilitate “micro-reactions” would invite more participation, especially with new participants.
  • One participant pointed out the need to be careful when using the thumbs up emoji which can sometimes convey acknowledgement rather than agreement.
  • There were comments that the meetings often include more involvement from the more involved members of the community who often share very relevant context, describing why a policy was originally introduced.
  • The idea of having new ways of surfacing that context was discussed:
  • In meetings: in the policy presentations.
  • Online: exposing that history through references to relevant draft policies which introduced and modified those sections.
  • Online: an interactive LLM trained on the NRPM and historical drafts to summarize relevant policy discussions.
  • It was noted that some new mailing list tools might offer some of the capabilities were being discussed.
  • Generally speaking, there was a receptive response to continuing the exploration into new ways of engaging with the community (surveys, platforms, etc.)

• Table Topic Overview: Section 6 IPv6 Allocations Experience. CW noted that there were seven people at the table, including three AC members (CW, EG and WH), one RIPE representative, and three community members.

  • A discussion prompt was given about the utility of the LIR(ISP)/End-User split on qualifications, and whether or not that split served the community. The general feedback among the community members was that the split was only useful in that end-users may not want the minimum LIR /32 allocation, and the point was given that eliminating the split would be welcome if requestors could receive smaller allocations without the existing restrictions. Alternatively, receiving a /32 as the base allocation may be welcome if there were no additional fees for members with smaller (less than /22) IPv4 allocations.

    While the AC had no influence on ARIN’s fee schedule, it was worth noting that perceived additional costs involved in adopting IPv6 continues to be a barrier. It would be helpful to point out the provisions in policy for smaller organizations receiving /36 or /40 allocations.

  • A question was posed regarding the overall experience requesting IPv6 allocations from ARIN. The feedback was generally positive, pointing out that ARIN’s Registration Services had been helpful (to the extent that they were able) with guiding requestors through properly documenting their requests for larger blocks. One table attendee noted that their experience with ARIN was far smoother than their experience making a similar request to other RIRs.

  • Among the group, it was noted that creating a request for IPv6 space was still challenging as there were some ambiguities in policy that made it hard for requestors to be confident that their plans will be accepted by ARIN. While ARIN’s how-to’s (particularly “Your First IPv6 Request” blog) had been helpful, there was still a lot of perceived ambiguity when it came to requests requiring multiple levels of aggregation and understanding the definition of a “serving site” in this context. Additional education on this topic would be helpful.

15. Any Other Business.

The Chair called for any other business.

• January In-Person Meeting San Antonio.

• The AC’s first meeting of the year will be held in Riverwalk Hyatt San Antonio, Texas, followed by an AC dinner, on Friday, 22 January 2027.

• Please see travel-related email from staff sent on 18 September. Please reach out if not received.

• MW thanked the Chair for her work as the AC’s Chair. He had a question about elections and the open seat on the AC. The Chair noted that conversations will take place as soon as the election results were received.

• WH stated that there were “pseudo” posters on the PPML. MW stated that this came up in their table topic and a real person was behind them. The President stated that if there was no attribution and the AC was not comfortable with that, drop ARIN staff a note and a reminder would be posted that attribution was required to participate on the PPML. LS also stated to remind people to use a chosen name. The President reminded the AC that at any point they feel uncomfortable, please reach out to ARIN staff.

  DC stated that he had at times reached out to an individual on the PPML to clarify their response, which helped in determining if they were using pseudonyms. The President reminded the AC that there were rules of engagement on the PPML and they were enforceable.

16. Adjournment.

The Chair entertained a motion to adjourn at 1:58 p.m. ET. MW moved to adjourn, seconded by WH. The meeting adjourned with no objections.