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

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 22, 2021, at 10:53 , Jon Lewis <jlewis at lewis.org> wrote:
> 
> On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, Michael Abejuela wrote:
> 
>> This policy proposal is outside the scope of the ARIN Number Resource Policy Manual and similarly, discussions regarding pricing structures that members of the community
>> must charge for their services are wholly outside the scope of the PPML. Further discussion of this policy must cease, and it is advisable for participants on PPML to be
>> cautious when commenting on any proposals that may be seen as an unreasonable restraint of trade, specifically including restrictions on pricing or pricing models via
>> contract, combination, or conspiracy.  ARIN policy does not impose any such restrictions on trade or pricing; and any attempt to propose or discuss such policies are
>> prohibited. 
>> Please focus all proposals and discussions on policies that meet the Internet number resource policy principles of 1) enabling fair and impartial number resource
>> administration, 2) technically sound (providing for uniqueness and usability of number resources), and 3) supported by the community. Discussions about pricing and/or
>> pricing models for members of the community are not appropriate for this mailing list and outside the scope of the Policy Development Process (PDP).
> 
> The referenced policy proposal may have been rushed and poorly considered, but I think the question raised by it is valid.  Does the membership consider "leasing of IP addresses" absent provision of some form of Internet connectivity, to be a valid behavior for ARIN member LIRs?  i.e. Can leased IPs be counted as utilized?

Not the question it raises.

The question it raises is “If we consider leasing without connectivity to be illegitimate allegedly because it distorts pricing in a harmful way, how is it better to permit leasing with connectivity at far higher prices than those general available from lessors that do not provide connectivity?”

> If ARIN staff were previously able to "read between the lines" in the NRPM and conclude that ARIN allocated IPs used by an LIR outside the ARIN region could not be counted as "utilized" (i.e. a global network operator using some of their ARIN allocated IPs in Japan), then I can't see how it's either out of scope or a forbidden topic to discus whether or not the NRPM should be updated with language to discourage IP leasing. i.e. Leased IPs not associated with the provision of Internet connectivity will not be considered "utilized".

To the best of my knowledge, ARIN never treated out-of-region utilization as illegitimate so long as the provider had sufficient in-region nexus and met a couple of other requirements.

Owen