Summary

  • Kaitlyn Pellak shepherds ARIN-2025-8, which would put ARIN’s existing in-region practice for Section 4.10 IPv4 allocations into the published policy manual. The draft remained under discussion on 25 October 2026.
  • In a September mailing-list exchange, Pellak urged opponents who wanted out-of-region use to propose a different rule. June Slater replied that turning staff interpretation into text would itself narrow applicants’ choices.

The neatest sentence in an address policy can shift the heaviest burden. In September, ARIN Advisory Council member Kaitlyn Pellak told critics of a proposed IPv4 restriction that a different approach would probably need its own policy proposal. She invited them to bring one. June Slater answered with the line that makes this more than a drafting quarrel: leaving a specific restriction out of the manual is also a policy choice. Their exchange is public, including Slater’s reply.

Pellak knows what a rule does after the meeting ends. In her ARIN election questionnaire, she describes beginning at an IP address broker, checking legacy holdings against RIR databases. At Amazon Web Services she acquired IPv4 addresses, then moved into internal IP resource management. She also spent time handling membership policy at a nonprofit. That path makes the gap between a sentence on a page and an actual allocation request unusually familiar to her. It does not give her employer a vote in this story: she is speaking as an elected council member and the draft’s shepherd.

The proposal concerns ARIN’s Section 4.10 pool, IPv4 space reserved to help deploy IPv6. The draft would add five words to the operative sentence: “within the ARIN service area.” ARIN staff say they already process requests that way. The staff review says the change would leave review practice intact and have no registry operational impact. The same record says the text is still under discussion. An existing interpretation is a real decision at the counter; a published rule gives that decision a different kind of permanence.

Pellak’s September letter defended that move as transparency. She said the draft followed feedback at ARIN 55 and asked critics for clearer wording. If they wanted Section 4.10 allocations used outside ARIN’s region, she encouraged a fresh proposal. Slater’s reply attacked the premise: codifying staff practice, she argued, would restrict applicants and staff discretion; she also asked for evidence of the misuse the restriction was meant to prevent. The two were arguing over the default setting, and the person who must persuade the room to change it.

At ARIN 58 on 22 October, Pellak presented the recommended draft again. That meeting kept the argument in public view. ARIN’s current policy page still calls ARIN-2025-8 “Under Discussion.” The regional fence is operating in staff practice; the council is deciding whether the rulebook should draw it in ink.