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

John Sweeting jsweeting at arin.net
Wed Sep 22 22:38:42 EDT 2021


Absolutely not Owen but the opinions shared might not be found when referencing the 2021-06 thread. There has been a lot of cross posting between the two threads. These emails will be in the archives.

Sent from my iPhone

On Sep 22, 2021, at 10:31 PM, Owen DeLong <owen at delong.com> wrote:

 Are you saying this thread may be stricken from the archives? I think that would be a travesty and unwarranted.

Owen


On Sep 22, 2021, at 10:58 , John Sweeting <jsweeting at arin.net<mailto:jsweeting at arin.net>> wrote:

Hi Fernando and others,

Please use the thread for 2021-06 for discussing opinions on leasing as this proposal will not be accepted as valid and therefore we might lose any comments posted in this thread.

Thanks,

John Sweeting
CCO
American Registry for Internet Numbers

From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net>> on behalf of Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com<mailto:fhfrediani at gmail.com>>
Date: Wednesday, September 22, 2021 at 1:55 PM
To: "arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>" <arin-ppml at arin.net<mailto:arin-ppml at arin.net>>
Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Proposal to ban Leasing of IP Addresses in the ARIN region


Hi John

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

Regards
Fernando

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.

Thanks,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers


On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:12 PM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com><mailto: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*.

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
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<mailto: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<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<mailto: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<mailto: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/20210923/2b6a3759/attachment-0001.htm>


More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list