[arin-ppml] Proposal to ban Leasing of IP Addresses in the ARIN region

[Chris Woodfield]

Fernando - I would support language similar to what you’ve proposed, as it explicitly requires the address allocation to be part of a connectivity service.

The trick then would be to make sure organizations can’t do it the other way around; I’m reminded of a nightclub I used to frequent that held a restaurant license, which only allowed them to serve alcohol as part of a order for food. As such, customers did not order drinks, they would buy a packet of peanuts that happened to be served with an alcoholic beverage alongside.

Let’s make sure that with this language, we don’t suddenly see an influx of “VPN Providers” who happen to be routing /24 or larger blocks to each of their customer’s tunnels.

Thanks,

-Chris 

> On Sep 22, 2021, at 9:12 AM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> I believe maybe Michael didn't understand well the matter fully or got only part of it.
> Probably what caused more confusion was how Owen put the part "No signatory to any ARIN RSA is permitted by policy to engage in a recurring charge for addresses or a differentiated service charge based on the number if addresses issued to a customer.". That could be dubious in the sense that a LIR could not charge administrative fees when they assign addresses to their connectivity customers.
> 
> A simple: "No signatory to any ARIN RSA is permitted by policy to engage issuing addresses to non-conectivity customers. Addresses must be provided strictly as part of a contract for connectivity services."
> 
> I think Owen tried to put in a way to strengthen his point of view the LIR lease addresses and by that text they would not permitted to do even for connectivity customers.Simplifying it would achieve the objective in the subject without necessarily change the usual way LIRs allocate addresses to their *connectivity customers*.
> 
> Regards
> Fernando
> 
> On 22/09/2021 13:00, Isaiah Olson wrote:
>> Hi Michael, 
>> 
>> I appreciate you clarifying this issue. If this policy proposal is considered out of scope, I would ask why Mike's policy proposal to explicitly allow leasing is considered in-scope for this PDP? If it is ARIN's position that it "does not impose any such restrictions on trade or pricing" with regards to pricing structure, why does ARIN differentiate justified need for transfers (trade) based on the absence or presence of connectivity services? 
>> 
>> I am happy to dispatch with any discussions that are not relevant or allowed, but I think that your post requires additional clarification of what topics are not permissible since many of the issues you have raised as out of scope are germane to other policies under discussion. 
>> 
>> Thanks, 
>> Isaiah 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________ 
>> ARIN-PPML 
>> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to 
>> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML at arin.net>). 
>> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: 
>> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml <https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml> 
>> Please contact info at arin.net <mailto:info at arin.net> if you experience any issues. 
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
> the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML at arin.net).
> Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20210922/6748b445/attachment.htm>