[ppml] Definition of "Existing Known ISP"
Ed.Lewis at neustar.biz
Thu Apr 26 08:42:53 EDT 2007
At 14:03 -0700 4/22/07, Owen DeLong wrote:
>Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=sha1;
>According to Leslie, ARIN staff would like community input on the
>definition of "Existing Known ISP" in the NRPM.
>I would propose that the following definition seems self-evident to me,
>but, I would like to see what others here have to say:
>"An existing, known ISP is any ARIN Subscriber Organization who has
>received an IPv4 allocation from ARIN or an ARIN predecessor which
>now is an ARIN Subscriber Organization."
At 8:51 -0400 4/23/07, Leo Bicknell wrote:
>Perhaps simpler, clearer language would be:
> Any current resource holder who has a signed RSA with ARIN.
Defining any "insert adjective here" ISP has risen many times in
different contexts, particularly on the NANOG mail list. Each time
the topic has been raised the effort stalls over a concern about
creating a categorization that runs afoul of someone's legal issues
with anti-trust, etc. (I am not pretending to understand the legal
issue/red herring, I'm just mentioning it because it seems to be the
end of the effort to categorize ISPs.)
I like Owen's definition because it gets to the core of what is
important to ARIN - the bar to joining the group is the same bar as
it takes to get resources. There is no other secret handshake or ISO
certification implied. And, for the purposes of ARIN policy,
"known/established" to ARIN is what is important, not any other form
What's lacking in Leo's definition is that ARIN does have a different
policy section for ISPs and for end-users. Both sign RSA's but the
policy proposal that (if I recall correctly) prompting the need to
define "existing known" does differentiate between ISPs and end-users.
The intent is to draw a somewhat restrictive circle around the
registrants for the purpose of making a definition. Defining the
term does not mean that it is a policy, so I don't think it hurts to
at least define this as tightly as we may need - and then worry
whether the policy that uses the term does so with the right
I have in mind too that there were legal council comments encouraging
the goal of having policy that does not differentiate between ISP and
end-site, in general, does not classify registrants. But there are
places in the policy where a distinction is useful to have.
In summary - I think the start Owen has is on the right track -
perhaps I would loosen it a bit and tighten it a bit by saying that
it is any organization that currently has resources from ARIN and has
(in the past emphasized) received number resources under a policy
that it qualified it for as an ISP, maintained records, and has
qualified at least once for additional resources.
By resources, I mean IPv4 and IPv6 ranges, possibly AS numbers.
Edward Lewis +1-571-434-5468
Sarcasm doesn't scale.
More information about the ARIN-PPML