[arin-ppml] Proposal to ban Leasing of IP Addresses in the ARIN region
fhfrediani at gmail.com
Wed Sep 22 13:55:21 EDT 2021
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
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.
> John Curran
> President and CEO
> American Registry for Internet Numbers
>> On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:12 PM, 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.
>> 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*.
>> 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.
>>> 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:
>>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
>> 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:
>> Please contact info at arin.net if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the ARIN-PPML