<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body style="overflow-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; line-break: after-white-space;">
<br>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div>On Dec 13, 2023, at 5:52 PM, John Curran <jcurran@arin.net> wrote:</div>
<div>
<div dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<blockquote type="cite">On Dec 13, 2023, at 5:09 PM, Owen DeLong <owen@delong.com> wrote:</blockquote>
</div>
<div>
<div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div>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. </div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
</div>
</div>
<div>Incorrect - As I indicated earlier, ARIN does consider the term “ISP” and provision of network services in its traditional context; ie, it “<span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> remains applicable to issuance of
IPv4 address space under NRPM 4.2 (Allocations to ISPs) as limited by 4.1.8 (ARIN Waitlist).</span><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"> “</span></div>
<div><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);"><br>
</span></div>
<div><font><span style="caret-color: rgb(0, 0, 0); -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; background-color: rgb(255, 255, 255);">If the community wishes it to be otherwise (e.g. taking your IPv6 term definition language into consideration), that change should be made
explicitly, and not as an incidental consequence of language cleanup.</span></font></div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<div>To be quite explicit (with the goal of more expeditious improving overall understanding) – let me reference back to my previous point regarding "would an organization that _only_ provides address management services for its users be considered an ISP?”
There’s little doubt that they would be considered an “LIR”, but if they are not doing the registry services for the provision of any network services, then they are not considered an ISP and do not qualify for IPv4 address space under NRPM section 4.2 &
4.1.8 ARIN Waitlist policy. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If the goal is to change this to allow an LIR absent any form of network service provision to obtain IP number resources solely for provision of local registry services, then it would be best if such is done via a policy proposal with a very clear intent
section. Absent such a change, ARIN will continue to provide maximum flexibility to organizations that need IP addresses for purposes of provision of network services in wide variety of forms, but that it not the same thing as any “LIR” given that the LIR
definition can encompass entities that might obtain addresses solely to provide address management services. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks,</div>
<div>/John</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>
<div>John Curran</div>
<div>President and CEO</div>
<div>American Registry for Internet Numbers</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</body>
</html>