[arin-ppml] Revised - Draft Policy ARIN-2025-1: Clarify ISP and LIR Definitions and References to Address Ambiguity in NRPM Text

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 19, 2025, at 14:41, William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> On Fri, Sep 19, 2025 at 12:50 PM Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML
> <arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
>> Why does the NRPM have to match ARIN internal terminology?
>> While I would encourage ARIN to adopt a better internal use of terminology, I don’t see that as relevant to the policy process at all.
> 
> Hi Owen,
> 
> Can you explain how it would benefit the community for ARIN to use one
> set of terminology in the NRPM and a different set of terminology in
> its communication with registrants?

It doesn’t. But we (policy development) cannot control ARIN business practices or what terminology ARIN chooses to use internally. 

It definitely benefits the community to use a correct term that has a vernacular definition that is close to or ideally accurately reflects our intent. In this case, the best match for that is LIR. 

> 
> ARIN uses "ISP" in its software and operating practices, and
> occasionally "LIR/ISP." If we want to zero in on a different term of
> art, I think we have to expect the organization to harmonize on that
> term. Consistency is just good communication practice. Zeroing in on a
> term other than ISP will incur a cost in changed documents, modified
> training and updated software.

As I said, I would hope that ARIN would do so, but as Leif correctly pointed out, that is out of scope for the AC and the PDP. 

> On the other hand, adjustments to the NRPM definition of ISP that
> don't particularly alter ARIN's practices, and harmonizing the NRPM on
> that term, carry a negligible cost.

We can agree to disagree on this. I think using overloaded terms that carry colloquial meanings contrary to or different from our policy intent have significant cost.  

Owen