> On Dec 13, 2023, at 12:25, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: > > > >>>> On Dec 13, 2023, at 1:40 PM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Dec 13, 2023, at 09:09, John Curran <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> ... >>>> I note that that you make a strong presumption about "what ARIN is >>>> actually concerned about”, and while registration aspects may frequently >>>> be the main focus, it is not necessarily always the case that ARIN’s >>>> concerns are limited to "the local registration of addresses to other >>>> entities” – ARIN’s remit is set by the member-elected Board per the >>>> policies developed by this community, so “what ARIN is actually concerned >>>> about” may extend a bit beyond your asserted viewpoint – again, depending >>>> on the policies established by the this community. >> >> I believe I said “primarily concerned about”. Please don’t disregard >> important words. > > Owen - > > If that’s the case, then my apologies, but our mail server seems to have your > email recorded as such – > > > "Best to avoid the quagmire of ambiguity and talk in terms of what ARIN > > is actually concerned about, which is the local registration of addresses > > to other entities (whether internal, external, or both). “
Fair enough. I think earlier in the message, I had said “primarily”, but yes, it’s definitely not in that particular paragraph. > >> So you’re saying that using the term LIR there would bring in unintended >> recipients? Given that we have already stated in the NRPM that the terms are >> interchangeable and have the same meaning for policies, this statement is >> confusing to me. > > The portion of the NRPM that defines LIR is as follows – > > A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an IR that primarily assigns IP addresses > to the users _of the network services_ that it provides. LIRs are generally > Internet Service Providers (ISPs) whose customers are primarily end users and > possibly other ISPs. > > As such, the question of interchangeability of the ”LIR” and “ISP” terms > requires considering whether there is alignment in "the network services” > that each provides. I refer you to 6.5.1.a 6.5.1. Terminology The terms ISP and LIR are used interchangeably in this document and any use of either term shall be construed to include both meanings. > Certainly in many cases an LIR is an ISP (and the NRPM LIR definition makes > that plain in its second clause), but to draw an example: would an > organization that only provides address management services for its users be > considered an ISP? > > It is not appropriate to conclude that NRPM equates the terms, but rather > that it only notes that "LIRS are generally ISPs.” –– i.e. the definition > clearly envisions the possibility that some LIRs may not be ISPs; they may > provide IP addresses to users, but that does not necessarily and > automatically equate with "the provision of network services” such as the > term Internet Service Providers encompasses. I don’t conclude that, I read it in the text of the NRPM quoted above. > > >>> That does not mean that “LIR” is not a suitable replacement for ISP in the >>> NRPM, but rather that the community will need to be clear if there are any >>> additional assumptions or constraints applicable to portions of the policy >>> that may have traditionally been assumed due to usage of the term “ISP”. >>> Extracting and making explicit such conditions makes for clearer policy, >>> and as such, moving to “LIR” as the more general term may actually >>> facilitate clearer ARIN number resource policy over the long term – so long >>> as appropriate care is taken in the update. >> >> I’m all for due diligence in the process, it given that the NRPM already >> calls out the terms as equivalent for policy purposes, the idea that it >> would change the meaning of the current policy is confusing to me. > > See above - alas, the NRPM does not presently call out the terms as > equivalent but rather only notes that LIRs "are generally ISPs." It doesn’t in section 2 where it defines LIR, but it does in 6.5.1.a as shown above. > >>> ... >>> As noted, such a change may be more _or less_ descriptive to actual policy >>> intent of particular sections of NRPM , but the community certainly has the >>> ability to consider such cases and clarify as needed. >> >> I believe that as implemented currently, the section you cite is used to >> issue addresses to a number of entity types that many would assume are not >> “ISPs”. > > Thank you – you nicely make my point that there may be usage of the term ISP > that people believe is more constrained that the term LIR – again, this > doesn’t argue against moving to using LIR as the consistent term throughout > NRPM, but simply notes that care should be taken to make sure the resulting > NRPM policy is unambiguous within the community regarding its policy intent – > particular when it comes to policy that is presently references and it > utilized by ISPs. My point was that ARIN doesn’t apply those greater constraints and said assumption is actually problematic in that it may dissuade or confuse legitimate applicants. Owen > > Thanks (and Happy Holidays!) > /John > > John Curran > President and CEO > American Registry for Internet Numbers > > > > > > > >
_______________________________________________ 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.
