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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 22, 2021, at 09:12 , 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.
> 
I assure you that Michael well and truly fully got it and understood it completely.

Michael reacted exactly as I predicted ARIN would react and made exactly the point I intended.
> 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.”
> 
Not my intent… If we’re going to ban leasing, let’s ban leasing in all forms.
> 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*.
> 
Please do not put words into my mouth. If you want a policy that does something other than what I intended, submit your own. If you don’t k now how to fill out the simple form, I’m happy to help you.

My proposal said exactly what I intended and provoked exactly the response I intended. We should either accept leasing or ban it. The half-way pretense that we are engaged in is a form of mental self-gratification which is, IMHO, as inappropriate as if I had used the clinical term for physical self-gratification on the mailing list.

Owen

> 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/20210922/42cee674/attachment.htm>