On Sat, Sep 30, 2023 at 6:39 PM Douglas Camin <[email protected]> wrote: > Reading the terms Allocation and Assignment, I see the primary > distinction between them as one is “for you” and one is “for you to give to > others.”
Hi Douglas, To the extent that there was a "primary" distinction, it's that one was for organizations acting like an ISP and one was for organizations acting like end-users. The associated nuance was extensive: everything from how you justified addresses to your public reporting responsibilities to not only how much you paid but the very framework for determining how much you paid. That's what made them "terms of art." https://www.justia.com/dictionary/term-of-art/ Someone who looks up those terms in connection with ARIN is going to find all the myriad explanations for how they worked. And be very confused since things will no longer work that way. The better plan is to pick a new term entirely. Leave assignment and allocation in the definitions so that you can note that they're obsolete and no longer used. Doesn't really matter what new words you choose: they'll become the new term of art attached to the new operating model. > The rationale used was that it was more straightforward to revise the > definition across the NRPM rather than replace each relevant > instance of “allocation” and “assignment” with another term > (allocation appears 245 times, and assignment appears 101 times.) Understood but respectfully: I think that would be a mistake for the reason described above. Regards, Bill Herrin -- William Herrin [email protected] https://bill.herrin.us/ _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
