[arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended

Sat Sep 10 13:13:28 EDT 2022

Hello Bruce

There is not problem at all in these scenarios as resources can be 
easily transferred and there are policies for that already, therefore 
the mechanism already exist.

Fernando

On 10/09/2022 13:31, Bruce Cornett via ARIN-PPML wrote:
>
> Hello
>
> I see a potential problem where changes in corporate structure occur 
> when shifting day to day operations to subsidiaries or sister 
> corporations, leaving the block assignment with the original holder.
>
> Bruce C
>
>> On Sep 9, 2022, at 9:44 AM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani at gmail.com> 
>> wrote:
>>
>> 
>>
>> Hello
>>
>> There is no such error in the proposal.
>> This has been checked as being the interpretation staff gives to the 
>> current policy in most RIRs. APNIC is just an example that have 
>> confirmed it publicly a couples of days ago.
>> You may not find all the very specific words you may wish for in the 
>> text, but it is not much difficult for them to have such 
>> interpretation given the resources must follow a proper justification 
>> of what they will be used for and that can never be that you will use 
>> them for leasing (rent of lend). ARIN also already confirmed in this 
>> very same list they don't accept it as a justification.
>>
>> There is no much around the term leasing. If an organization who 
>> don't provide any connectivity services to another simply rent or 
>> lend IP space, with or without a cost associated that is something 
>> that must not be since they no longer have a justification to keep 
>> that IP space and instead should either transfer it to those who 
>> really justify or return to ARIN.
>>
>> Fernando
>>
>> On 24/08/2022 11:04, Mike Burns wrote:
>>>
>>> Opposed, I think the proposal contains errors that should be fixed 
>>> before the discussion proceeds.
>>>
>>> For example this statement :
>>>
>>> “In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either 
>>> and since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this 
>>> proposal will be presented as well.”
>>>
>>> If it is not in their policy manuals, how can the proposers state 
>>> leasing is not authorized?
>>>
>>> Where do the proposers think authority comes from, if not from 
>>> policy and contract?
>>>
>>> Are they just assuming that all things are prohibited unless they 
>>> are explicitly allowed?
>>>
>>> That would be an interesting way to read the policy manual, if that 
>>> is the belief, we should discuss that.
>>>
>>> Beyond that there is the very next sentence:
>>>
>>> ” Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and it is not 
>>> acceptable as a justification of the need. “
>>>
>>> Once again the bias is towards prohibition despite language about 
>>> leasing being absent from RIPE policy. More to the point, and 
>>> something that can’t be drummed-home clearly enough to this 
>>> community, RIPE has no needs test at all for transfers and hasn’t 
>>> for years.  And yet RIPE still exists and operates as an RIR.  Even 
>>> further to the point, in the one occasion that RIPE performs a 
>>> needs-test, which is on inter-regional transfers from ARIN, 
>>> leased-out addresses are in fact acceptable as justification. That’s 
>>> because of two logical things. First, RIPE understands that the 
>>> inherent value of the addresses drives them towards efficient use. 
>>> Second, RIPE understands that they are charged with getting 
>>> addresses into use, not getting them into use on particular networks.
>>>
>>> So the first two sentences in the “situation at other RIRs” are 
>>> problematic/false.
>>>
>>> Might I suggest fixing those before we move forward, and also can 
>>> you please define the word leasing?
>>>
>>> This seems poorly though-out to me, and I haven’t started on the 
>>> meat of the proposal yet nor how it would be effectively policed and 
>>> prohibited.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>> Mike
>>>
>>> *From:* ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-bounces at arin.net> *On Behalf Of *ARIN
>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2022 12:29 PM
>>> *To:* PPML <arin-ppml at arin.net>
>>> *Subject:* [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended
>>>
>>> On 18 August 2022, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted 
>>> "ARIN-prop-308: Leasing Not Intended" as a Draft Policy.
>>>
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9 is below and can be found at:
>>>
>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_9/
>>>
>>> You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC 
>>> will evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this draft 
>>> policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as 
>>> stated in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these 
>>> principles are:
>>>
>>> * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
>>>
>>> * Technically Sound
>>>
>>> * Supported by the Community
>>>
>>> The PDP can be found at:
>>>
>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
>>>
>>> Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: 
>>> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Sean Hopkins
>>>
>>> Senior Policy Analyst
>>>
>>> American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
>>>
>>> Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended
>>>
>>> Problem Statement:
>>>
>>> “IPv6 Policy (section 6.4.1.) explicitly mention that address space 
>>> is not a property. This is also stated in the RSA (section 7.) for 
>>> all the Internet Number Resources.
>>>
>>> However, with the spirit of the IPv4 allocation policies being the 
>>> same, there is not an equivalent text for IPv4, neither for ASNs.
>>>
>>> Further to that, policies for IPv4 and IPv6 allocations, clearly 
>>> state that allocations are based on justified need and not solely on 
>>> a predicted customer base. Similar text can be found in the section 
>>> related to Transfers (8.1).
>>>
>>> Consequently, resources not only aren’t a property, but also, aren’t 
>>> allocated for leasing purposes, only for justified need of the 
>>> resource holder and its directly connected customers.
>>>
>>> Therefore, and so that there are no doubts about it, it should be 
>>> made explicit in the NRPM that the Internet Resources should not be 
>>> leased “per se”, but only as part of a direct connectivity service. 
>>> At the same time, section 6.4.1. should be moved to the top of the 
>>> NRPM (possibly to section 1. “Principles and Goals of the American 
>>> Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)”.”
>>>
>>> Policy statement:
>>>
>>> Actual Text (to be replaced by New Text):
>>>
>>> 6.4.1. Address Space Not to be Considered Property
>>>
>>> It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the 
>>> interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to 
>>> be considered freehold property.
>>>
>>> The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that 
>>> globally-unique IPv6 unicast address space is allocated/assigned for 
>>> use rather than owned.
>>>
>>> New Text
>>>
>>> 1.5. Internet Number Resources Not to be Considered Property
>>>
>>> It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the 
>>> interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to 
>>> be considered freehold property.
>>>
>>> The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that 
>>> Internet Number Resources are allocated/assigned for use rather than 
>>> owned.
>>>
>>> ARIN allocate and assign Internet resources in a delegation scheme, 
>>> with an annual validity, renewable as long as the requirements 
>>> specified by the policies in force at the time of renewal are met, 
>>> and especially the justification of the need.
>>>
>>> Therefore, the resources can’t be considered property.
>>>
>>> The justification of the need, generically in the case of addresses, 
>>> implies their need to directly connect customers. Therefore, the 
>>> leasing of addresses is not considered acceptable, nor does it 
>>> justify the need, if they are not part of a set of services based, 
>>> at least, on direct connectivity.
>>>
>>> Even in cases of networks not connected to the Internet, the leasing 
>>> of addresses is not admissible, since said sites can request direct 
>>> assignments from ARIN and even in the case of IPv4, use private 
>>> addresses or arrange transfers.
>>>
>>> Timetable for implementation: Immediate
>>>
>>> Situation in other Regions:
>>>
>>> In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and 
>>> since it is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this 
>>> proposal will be presented as well.
>>>
>>> Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and it is not 
>>> acceptable as a justification of the need. In AFRINIC, APNIC and 
>>> LACNIC, the staff has confirmed that address leasing is not 
>>> considered as valid for the justification.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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 contactinfo 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).
>> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 contactinfo at arin.net  if you experience any issues.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.arin.net/pipermail/arin-ppml/attachments/20220910/fdcc8403/attachment.htm>