<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;" class=""><div class=""><br class=""></div><div class=""><div class="" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b class="">Part a</b></div><div class="" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font size="4" class="">In a continuation of the NRPM Working Group's efforts to bring potential clarifications to the NRPM, this is another email in the series of Section 6 potential changes we would like to raise awareness of and gather feedback about from the ARIN community. </font></div><div class="" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font size="4" class=""><br class=""></font></div><div class="" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font size="4" class="">Section 6.5.1.a “Terminology” explains that ISP and LIR terms are used interchangeably throughout the entire document. The NRPM working group in discussions with ARIN staff has concluded that the term LIR could be replaced everywhere in the NRPM with the term ISP. By my counts the term LIR appears 37 times in the NRPM currently, while ISP is referenced 62 times. The LIR term is utilized less nowadays than in times past and ISP is a more widely used and well understood term. The LIR term occurs more frequently in other RIRs and it is likely that if section 6 were written solely for ARIN the ISP term would have been used. So the question to the community is, would replacing the term LIR with ISP make the NRPM more consistent and readable? The NRPM working group would like to hear your feedback.</font></div><div class="" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br class=""></div><div class="" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><b class="">Part b</b></div><div class="" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><font size="4" class="">Section 6.5.1.b defines the IPv6 nibble boundaries . The working group feels like this definition would be a better fit if moved to section 2 of the NRPM which is the Definitions section. Your thoughts about moving the IPv6 nibble boundaries definition from section 6.5.1.b to section 2 would be appreciated.</font></div><div class="" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><br class=""></div><div class="" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span class="">_</span></div><div class="" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span class="">Brian Jones</span></div><div class="" style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); color: rgb(0, 0, 0);"><span class="">NRPM Working Group</span></div></div></body></html>