<div dir="ltr"><div dir="ltr">On Tue, Sep 24, 2019 at 1:41 PM ARIN <<a href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a>> wrote:<br></div><div class="gmail_quote"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-style:solid;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">
Businesses have a need to lease IPv4 space for limited periods of time, <br>
as evidenced by a robust (technically prohibited) subleasing market. The <br>
lack of legitimization of the subleasing market hinders innovation, <br>
research, reporting, and the development of rules/industry best <br>
practices to ensure identifiability and contactability.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Devil's advocate: *should* the subleasing market be marginalized and illegitimate? What is it about the behavior of organizations leasing IP addresses absent network service which is not basically doing ARIN's job but for more money and with less oversight? </div><div><br></div><div>Serious question; not meant to be rhetorical. I want to hear what sort of address leasing independent of connectivity is not the job ARIN is tasked with.</div><div><br></div><div>Regards,</div><div>Bill Herrin</div><div><br></div></div><div><br></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div>William Herrin</div><div><a href="mailto:bill@herrin.us" target="_blank">bill@herrin.us</a></div><div><a href="https://bill.herrin.us/" target="_blank">https://bill.herrin.us/</a><br></div></div></div></div>