[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Permit IPv4 Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilizatio

[Matthew Wilder]

Hi PPML,

Just a reminder to the community that we as shepherds are entertaining
suggestions to clarify the problem statement in a way that might help
provide a basis for the policy to undergo development and advancement.

Please feel free to share your ideas.

Regards,

Matthew Wilder


On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:08 AM Sylvain Baya <abscoco at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dear ARIN-PPML,
>
> Please find my comments below; inline...
>
> Le lundi 8 août 2022, Andrew Dul <andrew.dul at quark.net> a écrit :
>
>> ARIN Draft Policy 2021-6 was retitled earlier this year as “Permit IPv4
>> Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future
>> Allocations” and
>
>
>>
>>
> Hi Andrew,
> Thank you for your email, brother!
>
> ...i want to recall that the INRS (Internet Numbers
> Resource System) [1] directs us about which entity
> are delegated/designated to, regionally and locally,
> distribute INRs to other Orgs in need-basis. These
> are RIR, LIR/NIR & ISP :-/
> Yes! sub-allocations/assignments exist! Why not
> simply use it?
>
> Also, INRs are not properties...
>
> imho! leasing opposes to need-basis utilization;
> unless it's fully managed by the delegated RIR,
> who's not really bound to need-basis constraint the
> same manner as LIRs are.
>
> If there is a *need* for a "leasing" policy; then imho,
> it would be to help in solving community problems;
>  and not individual ones.
>
> An example of a community problem could be:
> "shortening the INR's wainting list".
>
> |Q1. Which Org *should* be eligible to obtain INRs
> | in lease?
> |
> | A1. In order to obtain INRs in lease, from the RIR,
> | an Org *must* join the INRs Waiting List and check
> | the LIAL (List of INRs Available for Leasing)
> | option.
> |
> |Q2. Which Org *must* be allowed to provide INRs
> | for lease?
> | Which Resource Holder should provide INRs
> | through leasing; in order to satisfy others' needs?
> |
> | A2. If, after one year of holdering INRs, an Org is
> | not able to use 40 % of the numbers allocated to
> | it; then part of the other 60 % should join a List of
> | INRs Available for Leasing (LIAL); in order to not
> | fall under | the policy trap regarding minimum
> | utilization. After three years these unused INRs
> | join automatically the LIAL list.
> |
> |Q3. What's the benefit of Orgs which provide the
> | INRs they hold for lease?
> |
> | A3. If it's true that a resource holder who have not
> | used a given percentage of its allocated/assigned;
> | INRs would see those INRs reclaimed; then a draft
> | policy which could help them to hold those INRs
> | for more long would be of great help...imho :-/
> |
> |Q4. ...
> |
> | A4. ...
>
>
> Would it solve a community problem?
> What's the community problem to solve?
>
> Please share your own thoughts; even to contradict
> mine :-)
>
> Shalom,
> --sb.
>
>
>
>>
>> the text was also updated based upon feedback from the community at the
>> Fall 2021 meeting.
>>
>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_6/
>>
>> The draft did not receive sufficient support in the shepherds opinion to
>> move this policy toward a recommended draft policy. Since this time the
>> shepherds have been discussing with various members of the Internet
>> Community and the ARIN AC on a possible path forward for this draft policy.
>>
>> One of the ideas was to take a look at the problem statement and perhaps
>> update and clarify the problem statement in hopes that this process would
>> provide additional ideas to move the process forward.
>>
>> The current draft policy problem statement is as follows:
>>
>> Problem Statement: Current ARIN policy prevents the use of leased-out
>> addresses as evidence of utilization.
>>
>> Some contributors have suggested that there are perhaps two or more
>> issues that are attempting to be solved here.
>>
>>     Organizations would like the ability to lease some of their address
>> space and not limit the receipt of future IPv4 transfers due the fact that
>> ARIN’s evaluation of utilization considers leased space today to be unused.
>>
>>     Organizations who wish to obtain address space are not able to pledge
>> the address space as collateral in a financial transaction.  The RSA and
>> ARIN policy today limit the ability of IPv4 address resources to be
>> transferred to another party (financier) without that party showing need
>> for use on an operational network.
>>
>>
>> We invite your feedback on these thoughts and ideas to help us rework the
>> problem statement and future policy language solving these issues.
>>
>> In particular, do you believe the problem statement needs to be rewritten
>> to clarify the issue the Internet Community is trying to solve here?
>>
>> If so, what problem or problems do you believe that the Internet
>> Community needs to solve and what problem statement(s) make sense to
>> restart the conversation around this topic?
>>
>> Thanks in advance for your feedback,
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>
>
> --
>
> Best Regards !
> __
> baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure>
> Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/
> >
> __
> #‎LASAINTEBIBLE‬|#‎Romains15‬:33«Que LE ‪#‎DIEU‬ de ‪#‎Paix‬ soit avec
> vous tous! ‪#‎Amen‬!»
> ‪#‎MaPrière‬ est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement‬
> «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire
> après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2)
>
> _______________________________________________
> ARIN-PPML
> 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:
> https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
> Please contact 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/20220909/8fe3d03a/attachment.htm>