[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement

[Owen DeLong]

> On Sep 23, 2021, at 21:40 , William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 8:35 PM David Farmer <farmer at umn.edu> wrote:
>> maybe you could go back to my original question and comment on the examples I provided.
> 
> Hi David,
> 
> I can try, but bear in mind my viewpoint doesn't necessarily follow
> your dividing lines. Indeed, I'm reasonably confident it does not.
> 
> 
>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 17:53 William Herrin <bill at herrin.us> wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 23, 2021 at 2:41 PM David Farmer via ARIN-PPML
>>> <arin-ppml at arin.net> wrote:
>>>> I have a question for those that oppose the leasing or loaning of IPv4 addresses to other entities absent connectivity; Is it the rent-paying or that lack of connectivity provided with the addresses that offend you? Or, both?
>>> 
>>> The defined Economics term is "rent seeking." Just renting something
>>> to someone is not "rent seeking." The term has a specific meaning.
>>> Briefly, it means exploiting a rule-making process (such as law,
>>> regulation or other public policy) often by changing it to let you
>>> make money without adding value.
>> 
>> So, I intentionally didn’t, use that term, but I figured someone would. I didn’t want to limit my question to that precise meaning, but I didn’t want to exclude it either.
>> 
>> I have heard it said by some that charging for addresses is wrong, they should be included with the connectivity for no additional charge. Along time ago, I felt much the same, but things have changed and that is no longer realistic. Things have evolved, maybe not for the better, but nevertheless they have evolved.
> 
> Part of why I used the term "rent seeking," is that it makes this
> difference clearer. When I sell connectivity which includes addresses
> and I'm not just faking the connectivity, there is a meaningful value
> added. When there's substantive value added it's definitionally not
> rent seeking. Could be other problem things but it's not the Big
> Problem.

When you charge me an extra $100/month/address on top of what you
charge me for that connectivity, how is that not rent seeking?

Further, if someone else is willing to rent me the addresses I need for
$5/mont/address as an alternative to your $100/mont/address, how
does your $100/month/address add any distinct value?

I get the value of the connectivity service, but that’s a separate charge.
Now we’re talking about the value you provide by leasing me that
static address for $100/month/address that doesn’t exist when some other
provider will lease one to me for $5/month/address.

> I'm not comfortable with LIRs assigning ARIN-size quantities of
> addresses downstream either, but that isn't inherently rent seeking.
> It's a separate issue. We can usefully talk about it separately or
> even kick the can down the road.

Define “ARIN-size” quantities. ARIN has previously issued everything from
/6 to /24 to the best of my knowledge (Not 100% sure about /6, but pretty
certain at least /7 and definitely /8).

Where does your comfort end in terms of prefix length?

AFRINIC has a policy that doesn’t preclude this, but adds significant friction
to the process. The end result has been that it has become an effective tool
for the monopoly telecoms to hold their customers hostage to their rent-seeking
behaviors. They won’t announce/route direct RIR space from their customers
and they use the AFRINIC policy as an excuse not to provide allocations to
their downstream customers who are (or want to be) service providers, so
their downstream service providers can’t issue addresses properly to their
customers and are forced into a form of second class citizenry.

It has not worked well at all.

>>> Address leasing, on the other hand, is unapologetically rent seeking.
>>> I have them only because the regulatory agency allowed it. I add no
>>> value by letting you pay me to use them but you have no choice because
>>> the regulatory agency has no more to offer. I and my contemporaries
>>> took them all.
>> 
>> 
>> Requiring Technical Need doesn’t automatically prevent Rent Seeking
> 
> Agree.
> 
>> So, Technical Need is no protection from Rent Seeking.
> 
> Disagree, as stated above. One of the core elements of rent seeking is
> that the product-out has little or no additional value compared to the
> product-in. It only has additional cost. When technical need is
> understood to mean companion network resources which have added
> substantive value to the addresses, it can't be simple rent seeking.

Isn’t that also called “retail”?

What value add comes from taking a product in the back door in a large
case and selling it for double the price in smaller quantities out the front door?

>> I have no problem with a healthy skepticism of
>> address brokers, they are out to make money,
>> but there is nothing wrong with that.
> 
> I have no problem with address brokers facilitating address
> -transfers- and being well paid for it. The U.S. is an ownership
> society and transfer is a critical part of ownership. I'm for it.
> 
> I'm also mindful of U.S. history. The early colonists weren't just
> religious fanatics, they fled the trailing vestiges of European
> Feudalism. In particular, they fled _rent_. When we think of royalty
> we think of Kings and Queens but the rank and file were the Lords and
> Ladies. More precisely, they were the Lords of the Land or
> _Landlords_. With the exception of a few Freeholders, you were either
> royalty or you were a peasant and paid rent on your generational farm
> to the local Lord of the Land. Who was at liberty to evict you at his
> pleasure and in fact did so.
> 
> In the U.S. you could own your land. The farm was yours. You were the
> landlord. It was a big deal. This is why hundreds of years later
> things like interest on the mortgage for your primary home is tax free
> and the politicians get bent out of shape when banks make mortgages
> hard to get. It is the public policy of the United States to strongly
> encourage ownership over rental.

Yes, but in the US, you are also free to choose (assuming you have enough
money) whether you wish to take on the responsibilities and obligations
that come with ownership or whether you prefer to lease a place to live.

You can call that policy, but the reality is that a growing number of young
people are strongly opting for leasing rather than owning.

> As someone steeped in U.S. history, the notion of IP peasantry and IP
> Landlords makes me deeply deeply uncomfortable. I'd like to see policy
> in IP addressing that is thematically similar to the overall U.S.
> public policy prioritizing personal ownership.

Guess what… That’s no more a valid dichotomy here than it would be in
real estate. Indeed, customers have choice. If they want to buy IPv4
addresses on the transfer market, they can. If they want to lease them,
that’s a viable option, too.

> So, for me it isn't particularly about technical need, it's about
> whatever facsimile of ownership applies to IP addresses dividing the
> haves and have nots with rent-seeking behavior being the most extreme
> version of that particular evil.

You don’t think that we have haves and have nots by virtue of the transfer
market or even that we wouldn’t have them without it?

That’s laughable.

Owen