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

William Herrin bill at herrin.us
Fri Sep 24 00:40:06 EDT 2021

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

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.

>> 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


> 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.

> 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.

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.

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.

Bill Herrin

William Herrin
bill at herrin.us

More information about the ARIN-PPML mailing list