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

[Leif Sawyer]

Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> escribir:
>> On Mar 9, 2026, at 10:49, Leif Sawyer via ARIN-PPML <mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
>> 
>> For clarification -  RIPE uses “member of”  in its definition of LIR.   The thought was to try and bridge between multiple RIR definitions, and clearly show how LIRs are downstream of RIRs and nominally provide equivalent functionality whether or not they provide network connectivity services.   Fortunately, it’s a work in progress.   
>>
>
> In RIPE, all LIRs are members. This is not necessarily the case with some ARIN legacy LIRs that aren’t subject to an RSA. 

T'is sooth.   "are you now, or have you ever been"  gets trickier.     You did  provide a couple of other examples.  Hopefully those, or something else will
bring enough clarity for consensus.

>
> In RIPE, non-contract resource holders are not considered LIRs. 
>

An interesting note, as I didn't see that when looking, but I didn't check everywhere for exemptions to the definition.    Functional, rather than contractual though.

>
>> I do agree that “at a local level”  is somewhat problematic when looking only from the geographic center.   But “local”  can mean to a single company diaspora as well – it’s just not *clear* from context that it’s intended to read that way.  
>
> Do you believe that the phrase (if clarified somehow) adds meaning or value to the policy? Personally, I think it is superfluous and merely deleting those words is the best course of action here. 

It's starter language to get people interested in forming the policy.  I have no connection to them either way, other than it was my hand that copied them from one definition to this draft.    

But otherwise, with some minor editorials, you're in favor of the "flavor"  of the draft?


Leif Sawyer
GCI | he/him | Engineer IV, CNI – Standards and Planning
t: 907-351-1535 | w: https://www.gci.com | KL5BN