[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18: LIR/ISP Re-Assignment to Non-Connected Networks

[Owen DeLong]

> Second is the point that one of the business cases for leasing is for spamming. This is something to consider, but I would like for you to put yourself into the position of a Lessor. The Lessor knows  his blocks will lose value if they are blacklisted, so they take steps to mitigate this. For example, one notable lessor charges a $20 fee for every abuse complaint on a leased block. The Lessee pays the $20 fee and most of it is paid to the Lessor as compensation. This disincentivizes spamming on leased blocks. A Lessor who gets tricked into leasing to a spammer will find his block devalued significantly. He can get it delisted one, maybe twice if he can spin a good story. After that, no more for that owner. So the owners have penalties and usage terms built into the lease contract, or they get prepayment for many months in advance, or they lease large blocks which are not appealing to spammers. The point is this is a valid argument against changing policy to support leasing, but the problems are long-known and the market has applied corrections.  On the other hand, spammers like to hijack too, and having the ability to define a hijack as being non-compliant with a lease policy will enable ARIN to pressure the address holder for a policy violation if pressure from that side helps.

This assumes that the spammer in question will actually pay the fees. Ethical spammers — ROFLMAO.

Snowshoe spammers lease a block (or steal one), use it until it gets blacklisted, then move on to another one. That’s how they role.

By the time they get the bill for the abuse complaints, they’ve long since stopped using the block in question and they simply don’t pay.

These fees are only affective against lessees with generally good intent. The truly evil ones never pay them.

Owen