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

[Joe Maimon]

Owen DeLong via ARIN-PPML wrote:
> Mike’s proposal expands trade and therefore can’t be construed as restraint of trade… The real question is if banning leasing in all forms is restraint of trade, why isn’t the current policy also restraint of trade?
>
> Owen
>
>
Owen,

This proposal is a strawman ppml troll, it is clearly restraint on 
trade, it specifically was written to be so.

My understanding of ARIN's current policy which does not permit 
operationally divorced number assignment to be utilized for needs-based 
justification for application to ARIN, is clearly not.

For reasons that are obvious upon the slightest reflection, such as that 
it only concerns itself with interactions where ARIN is the direct party.

Even with all the various positions we have found ourselves in 
opposition, I find myself confused as to how this made it out of the 
outbox, the potential negative effects on the public discourse should 
have been enough to discard. I would like to chalk it up as an aberration.

The only motivation that I can ascribe is the clearly expressed desire 
to hasten IPv4 demise by intensifying its scarcity and decreasing its 
usability.

As before, I dont consider that responsible or justifiable, no matter 
the length of time that it would actually affect real people, and no 
matter the effect it may have in accelerating IPv6 deployment, which 
personally, I doubt very much would be anything other than negligible.

IPv4 policies should advance IPv4 number stewardship. IPv6 policies 
should advance IPv6 number stewardship. Cross-motivations should be 
automatically suspect and should require extensive and explicit 
justification.

I dont mind if this blight of an email thread gets lost.


Joe