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

[John Curran]

Fernando -

Discussions regarding the policy that ARIN uses for administration of the registry is perfectly fine, and that includes any applicable policy regarding issuance and maintenance of IP address blocks.   The area of concern is discussions considering limitations on terms/conditions/pricing of services that might be offered by ARIN’s customers to their customers - it is not ARIN’s role to set such terms.

Examples:

Unacceptable
“You must/must-not offer service _X_ to your customers”    Unacceptable  – not within ARIN’s remit.
“You must/must-not charge your customers for service _Y_ ”    Unacceptable  – not within ARIN’s remit.

Acceptable
“IP address space must be used to provide connectivity services to customers to be considered to be in “operational use”     Acceptable – if the community were to decide to establish such policy.
“Organizations must reflect in the ARIN registry all issuance to a single customer of /29 of IPv4 address space or larger."    Acceptable – if the community were to decide to establish such policy.

Does this help clarify?
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers



On 22 Sep 2021, at 1:55 PM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com<mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>> wrote:


Hi John

I don't think anyone discussing this thread is much concerned about pricing of services between ARIN participants and their customers really. I am personally not. The confusion may have come from the way Owen have put the text of this proposal.
What we are discussing so far is only about a proposal to have an appropriate language to ban Leasing of IP Addresses by LIRs.

Hope this helps to clarify

Regards
Fernando

Em 22/09/2021 14:48, John Curran escreveu:
Fernando -

Michael was 100% correct - do not engage in discussions of pricing or other terms of service between ARIN participants and their customers. Doing so is prohibited by US antitrust law and ARIN will not be a party to facilitating such discussions.

Participants who attempt to violate applicable law in this manner will be expressly removed from ARIN mailing lists in order to protect the remainder of the community that is able to participate properly.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:12 PM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com><mailto: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
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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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/20210922/58e7bcf4/attachment.htm>