<html>
  <head>
    <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
  </head>
  <body>
    <p>I understand your argument here now, I still don't see any
      meaningful reason to financially reward networks who are currently
      non-compliant with existing policy. I don't agree with your
      characterization that there is no financial incentive existing
      either. Networks who are non-compliant with their reporting
      requirements could, in the worst case scenario, be subject to
      having their space reclaimed by ARIN. I would argue this means
      that, in practice, the stick is already available in policy, ARIN
      is just not using it on a widespread basis at this time.<br>
    </p>
    <p>- Isaiah<br>
    </p>
    <div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 9/22/2021 9:43 AM, Mike Burns wrote:<br>
    </div>
    <blockquote type="cite"
      cite="mid:02b101d7afc0$40270680$c0751380$@iptrading.com">
      <meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
      <meta name="Generator" content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered
        medium)">
      <style>@font-face
        {font-family:"Cambria Math";
        panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}@font-face
        {font-family:Calibri;
        panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}@font-face
        {font-family:Verdana;
        panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
        {margin:0in;
        font-size:11.0pt;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
        {mso-style-priority:99;
        color:blue;
        text-decoration:underline;}span.EmailStyle19
        {mso-style-type:personal-reply;
        font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
        color:windowtext;
        font-weight:normal;
        font-style:normal;}.MsoChpDefault
        {mso-style-type:export-only;
        font-size:10.0pt;}div.WordSection1
        {page:WordSection1;}</style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
      <div class="WordSection1">
        <p class="MsoNormal">Because currently there is no
          "justification benefit" for accurate registration, but this
          policy would create one.<o:p></o:p></p>
        <p>I don't understand what you are asserting here. There is
          currently a requirement to accurately report re-allocations.
          The only benefit I see is to networks that are currently
          non-compliant with that policy. If networks are failing to
          meet those obligations, I would argue a better policy proposal
          would be one to strengthen the penalties related to
          non-compliance with that policy, rather than rewarding
          non-complaint networks.<o:p></o:p></p>
        <p>- Isaiah<o:p></o:p></p>
        <p><o:p> </o:p></p>
        <p>Good morning Isaiah,<o:p></o:p></p>
        <p>This policy will create a financial benefit for accurate
          registration of leased addresses that currently does not
          exist. I lease addresses out, but there is no financial
          incentive for me to register those leases in any way at ARIN.
          However if I wanted to purchase more addresses to meet the
          needs of more lessees, then I would have a financial incentive
          for accurate registration. I am not arguing that this should
          be required, I think we all should strive for accurate
          registration. But I see financial incentives as meaningful,
          they are driving the IPv4 distribution system today.  <o:p></o:p></p>
        <p>It’s the carrot approach, but you can try the stick to see if
          that would encourage more accurate assignments.<o:p></o:p></p>
        <p>Regards,<br>
          Mike<o:p></o:p></p>
        <p><o:p> </o:p></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
        <div>
          <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1
            1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in">
            <p class="MsoNormal"><b>From:</b> Isaiah Olson
              <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:Isaiah@olson-network.com"><Isaiah@olson-network.com></a> <br>
              <b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, September 21, 2021 8:00 PM<br>
              <b>To:</b> Mike Burns <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com"><mike@iptrading.com></a><br>
              <b>Cc:</b> 'ARIN-PPML List' <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net"><arin-ppml@arin.net></a><br>
              <b>Subject:</b> Re: Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove
              Circuit Requirement<o:p></o:p></p>
          </div>
        </div>
        <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
        <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
          <p class="MsoNormal">Nonetheless your objection was that this
            proposal somehow would not distribute resources in
            accordance with policy, I think your objection was addressed
            completely.<o:p></o:p></p>
        </blockquote>
        <p class="MsoNormal">You are certainly correct that my initial
          objection was unclear. Specifically, I do not believe that
          this policy is compatible with section 4.2 of the PDP process,
          nor 4.3 as of this moment. Compliance with the NRPM would seem
          to be irrelevant since the policy proposal would change the
          NRPM.<o:p></o:p></p>
        <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
          <p class="MsoNormal">You are drifting. I never made the
            argument you are saying I made regarding any benefit of
            leasing to RIPE.<o:p></o:p></p>
          <div>
            <p class="MsoNormal">I said in response to Noah, and you now
              agree, that allowing leasing will not in fact lead to the
              demise of an RIR.<o:p></o:p></p>
          </div>
          <div>
            <p class="MsoNormal">I take it you agree that Noah's
              objection in this regard has been addressed.<o:p></o:p></p>
          </div>
        </blockquote>
        <p class="MsoNormal">You are the one who opened the door to the
          RIPE situation, although I would have certainly cited the
          research from my first email regardless. Although you may have
          addressed the extreme example brought up by Noah, you have
          failed to address any of the concerns I have raised about the
          results of the RIPE policy. If I've put words in your mouth, I
          apologize. However, I am asking you directly to address
          whether you consider the policy implementation in RIPE to have
          been beneficial to the Internet community, both in the region
          and as a whole, because I would argue the data says otherwise.<o:p></o:p></p>
        <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
          <p class="MsoNormal">OK the waiting list is rock solid, but my
            wisp needs a /21, what now? My point remains, the waiting
            list is not appropriate for all those in need, and if there
            were alternatives then there would be no market for leases
            to begin with. I can spend all day giving examples of
            legitimate lessees. I think you should concede that there
            are legitimate business cases where leases make more sense
            for the recipient.<o:p></o:p></p>
        </blockquote>
        <p>The waiting list may not be appropriate for all needs, but it
          certainly fills in many of the gaps you are arguing
          necessitate leasing. The edge cases you note may make for a
          compelling argument for expanding wait list eligibility, but I
          don't find them compelling enough to justify a RIR-wide policy
          change to allow leased addresses to be considered as
          justification, a policy which has the potential for
          considerable negative side effects to the community. The
          existence of a market for leasing does not equate to a
          necessity for the ARIN community to enable and subsidize the
          practice by changing policy in this way. I would certainly
          concede that legitimate business cases for leasing IPv4 do
          exist. Unfortunately, there is a dearth of reputable research
          into the leasing market, so I will refrain from making any
          assertions about the proportion of legitimate to
          non-legitimate use cases. Regardless, the existence of
          legitimate use cases doesn't strike me as a compelling reason
          to support this policy.<o:p></o:p></p>
        <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
          <p class="MsoNormal">I believe you have conceded that my
            assertion is correct.<o:p></o:p></p>
        </blockquote>
        <p>With regards to your assertions about the composition of the
          pool of lessors, I would agree that you are correct. I do not
          concede or agree in any way that your assertion supports
          implementation of this particular policy. I do not support the
          concept of LIRs acquiring new space solely to lease
          off-network, and I would prefer that the pool available for
          leasing off-network dwindles over time until as much space as
          possible can be brought under terms that explicitly disallow
          the practice. For networks smaller than /20, the waiting list
          provides an acceptable alternative and it appears that the
          current rate of revocations is approximately matched to the
          demand on the waiting list, for networks larger than /20, I
          assert that what you propose would only exacerbate the
          difficulty of obtaining a block at a reasonable price.<o:p></o:p></p>
        <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
          <p class="MsoNormal">That is the current policy, to disallow
            justification without a circuit, so  your objection to this
            proposal means you prefer no leasing policy.<o:p></o:p></p>
        </blockquote>
        <p>You are correct here, I certainly prefer a no leasing policy,
          specifically one that is stronger than the current policy, but
          I still prefer the current policy to what you propose. I do
          not believe it is legally or economically feasible for ARIN to
          retroactively reclaim resources that are currently being
          leased off-network, but I don't consider anything you've
          presented here as a compelling argument to officially sanction
          the practice regardless of the historical inequalities.<o:p></o:p></p>
        <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
          <p class="MsoNormal">I consider this also a concession that
            what I said is true about "providing an incentive" which is
            as far as I went.<o:p></o:p></p>
        </blockquote>
        <p>You're going to need to go further if you want to garner any
          significant community support for this proposal.<o:p></o:p></p>
        <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
          <p class="MsoNormal">I agree with your first contention, that
            this policy could in fact lead to price increases on the
            transfer market.<o:p></o:p></p>
          <div>
            <p class="MsoNormal">But the basic math you refer to is the
              linkage between the transfer market and the lease market.<o:p></o:p></p>
          </div>
          <div>
            <p class="MsoNormal">Transfer prices have doubled this year,
              lease rates have not doubled, they haven't risen anywhere
              nearly as quickly.<o:p></o:p></p>
          </div>
          <div>
            <p class="MsoNormal">I think the lack of ability to purchase
              blocks to feed the lease market in ARIN serves to loosen
              that coupling between the lease and transfer market.<o:p></o:p></p>
          </div>
          <div>
            <p class="MsoNormal">Thanks for phrasing it as "if networks
              choose to lease", as that is a clear understanding of the
              way things work currently.<o:p></o:p></p>
          </div>
          <div>
            <p class="MsoNormal">Lessors and lessees are choosing to
              engage in leasing because they both see an advantage.<o:p></o:p></p>
          </div>
          <p class="MsoNormal">So let me admit my assertion that lease
            rates would drop with this policy is just an assumption and
            not an assertion.<o:p></o:p></p>
        </blockquote>
        <p>I would agree with your assertion that the linkage between
          the transfer market and the leasing market is loose. I expect
          that there will be a corresponding increase in lease prices
          over time. If you have any historical data to contradict that
          expectation, I'd certainly be open to hearing it. If networks
          choose to lease when there are alternatives available, I am
          unconcerned if they must pay more, even significantly more in
          the far flung future when the leasing pool has dwindled,
          because that is the price they are choosing to pay for the
          flexibility associated with a lease.<o:p></o:p></p>
        <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
          <p class="MsoNormal">Thanks, I think we understand that you do
            not support the policy but I don't think that you overcame
            my assertion this time.<br>
            Because currently there is no "justification benefit" for
            accurate registration, but this policy would create one.<o:p></o:p></p>
        </blockquote>
        <p>I don't understand what you are asserting here. There is
          currently a requirement to accurately report re-allocations.
          The only benefit I see is to networks that are currently
          non-compliant with that policy. If networks are failing to
          meet those obligations, I would argue a better policy proposal
          would be one to strengthen the penalties related to
          non-compliance with that policy, rather than rewarding
          non-complaint networks.<o:p></o:p></p>
        <p>- Isaiah<o:p></o:p></p>
        <div>
          <p class="MsoNormal">On 9/21/2021 6:17 PM, Mike Burns wrote:<o:p></o:p></p>
        </div>
        <blockquote style="margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt">
          <div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
                  Isaiah,<o:p></o:p></span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Thanks,
                  replies inline.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
            </div>
            <div style="border:none;border-top:solid #CCCCCC
              1.0pt;padding:0in 0in 0in
              0in;margin-top:7.5pt;margin-bottom:7.5pt">
              <p class="MsoNormal" style="mso-line-height-alt:0pt"><span
style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
              <div id="Zm-_Id_-Sgn1">
                <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                    style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">----
                    On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 18:56:05 -0400 <b>Isaiah Olson
                      <a href="mailto:Isaiah@olson-network.com"
                        moz-do-not-send="true"><Isaiah@olson-network.com></a></b>
                    wrote ----<o:p></o:p></span></p>
              </div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
              <blockquote>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Hi
                      Mike, <br>
                      <br>
                      Thanks for your reply. I would be happy to address
                      each of your assertions. <br>
                      <br>
                      > That RIPE situation is an unfortunate
                      artifact of their reserve pool <br>
                      > for new entrants. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Can you share the percent of those /24s that
                      begin with 185? <br>
                      Roughly 17% of the RIPE IP space that I have on my
                      list comes from that <br>
                      block. I would hardly agree that the statistically
                      significant disparity <br>
                      in transfer market abuse activity across all RIPE
                      IP ranges is solely an <br>
                      artifact of this single block. <br>
                      <br>
                      > First you wrote “The onus is not on ARIN to
                      sanctify practices that <br>
                      > some are already engaging in, but rather to
                      distribute number <br>
                      > resources in accordance with community
                      developed policy.” <br>
                      > <br>
                      > My answer is that this policy proposal
                      continues to distribute number <br>
                      > resources in accordance with community
                      developed policy. <br>
                      It will be community policy if and when it is
                      adopted through this PDP, <br>
                      which seems unlikely at this point since you are
                      the only person arguing <br>
                      in favor and I don't find your arguments
                      particularly convincing since <br>
                      they are not backed up by any hard data. Whether
                      the policy comports <br>
                      with the goals of the PDP itself is a different
                      question.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Mike-Nonetheless
                      your objection was that this proposal somehow
                      would not distribute resources in accordance with
                      policy, I think your objection was addressed
                      completely.<br>
                      <br>
                      > I would agree with you, but that doesn’t mean
                      we should ignore <br>
                      > relevant data from our sister registry, and I
                      brought up RIPE to deal <br>
                      > with Noah’s objection about what will happen
                      should this policy pass <br>
                      What relevant data have you provided from RIPE
                      which justifies your <br>
                      initial assertion? Certainly you may have rejected
                      Noah's concern that <br>
                      the RIR would collapse, given the fact that RIPE
                      still exists, but I <br>
                      haven't seen any compelling data cited here that
                      shows any benefit to <br>
                      the RIPE community due to their policy and I have
                      provided data which <br>
                      shows quite the opposite. A lack of immediate
                      negative effects is hardly <br>
                      sufficient data to declare that RIPE policy hasn't
                      caused negative long <br>
                      term effects, of which we may not have yet seen
                      the full impact.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Mike-You
                      are drifting. I never made the argument you are
                      saying I made regarding any benefit of leasing to
                      RIPE.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I
                      said in response to Noah, and you now agree, that
                      allowing leasing will not in fact lead to the
                      demise of an RIR.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I
                      take it you agree that Noah's objection in this
                      regard has been addressed.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <blockquote>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
                      <br>
                      > Then you won’t have to worry about leasing,
                      because you claim there is <br>
                      > no market for it. The waiting list is not a
                      guaranty, and has an <br>
                      > unpredictable schedule for address delivery.
                      I gave an example of a <br>
                      > WISP seeking to try out a new area, and why
                      leasing addresses might be <br>
                      > quite attractive to that WISP for entirely
                      legitimate reasons. <br>
                      I would not consider the current waiting list
                      distributions <br>
                      unpredictable, in fact I would argue it's quite
                      the opposite in <br>
                      practice. Speaking from personal experience on the
                      waiting list before <br>
                      ARIN moved to quarterly distributions, I waited
                      only four months to <br>
                      receive a block. Under the last several quarterly
                      distributions, nearly <br>
                      every request on the list has been fulfilled in
                      each distribution, <br>
                      resulting in a consistent distribution schedule of
                      3-6 months for the <br>
                      last several distributions. The oldest request
                      currently on the list is <br>
                      from 07/01/2021. I would ask ARIN to please
                      provide some hard data about <br>
                      this process for the community to consider when
                      evaluating this policy, <br>
                      because I do not believe the current reality of
                      the waiting list agrees <br>
                      with your assertions. If and when that changes, I
                      would possibly be open <br>
                      to re-considering my position on the matter. <br>
                      <br>
                      With regards to leasing, I did not assert that
                      there is no market for <br>
                      leasing, but rather that alternatives to leasing
                      do exist and you are <br>
                      casting them in an a light that I do not believe
                      reflects the reality of <br>
                      the situation. Under current policy, your WISP
                      example is free to apply <br>
                      to the waiting list for the block it needs to try
                      out the new area, and <br>
                      either return or re-purpose it if services in that
                      new area don't work <br>
                      out. I don't find a compelling argument here for
                      the necessity of <br>
                      leasing addresses. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Mike-
                      OK the waiting list is rock solid, but my wisp
                      needs a /21, what now? My point remains, the
                      waiting list is not appropriate for all those in
                      need, and if there were alternatives then there
                      would be no market for leases to begin with. I can
                      spend all day giving examples of legitimate
                      lessees. I think you should concede that there are
                      legitimate business cases where leases make more
                      sense for the recipient.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
                      > Opposing this policy means the only lessors
                      are the lucky incumbents. <br>
                      If the lucky incumbents choose to retain their
                      IPv4 space and lease it, <br>
                      that is certainly their choice to make. However,
                      under the current <br>
                      policy you propose to change, they may not
                      consider leased addresses as <br>
                      justification for additional space. I feel the
                      current policy strikes a <br>
                      perfectly appropriate balance. If a network has
                      leased space available <br>
                      to reclaim when leases expire, it is inappropriate
                      for them to seek <br>
                      additional allocations from the RIR. If they have
                      over-leased their <br>
                      space such that they cannot operate their network
                      until someone's lease <br>
                      expires, then they should not expect the ARIN
                      community to subsidize <br>
                      their lack of foresight with additional addresses.
                      Transfers in such a <br>
                      situation are a different matter and I would
                      certainly consider this <br>
                      policy in a different light if leasing space were
                      to be exempted as <br>
                      justification for waiting list request. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Mike-
                      I believe you have conceded that my assertion is
                      correct.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
                      > Opposing this policy means a lack of policy
                      is preferred, despite the <br>
                      > open practice of leasing. <br>
                      As I originally stated in my first e-mail, I do
                      not prefer the lack of <br>
                      policy or the insufficiency of the current policy.
                      I would instead <br>
                      prefer to see the policy explicitly strengthened
                      to disallow off-network <br>
                      leasing as justification for additional requests,
                      despite the fact that <br>
                      ARIN has made it clear that they consider the
                      current policy to prohibit <br>
                      using such addresses as justification.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Mike
                      - That is the current policy, to disallow
                      justification without a circuit, so  your
                      objection to this proposal means you prefer no
                      leasing policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
                      <br>
                      > Opposing this policy provides incentive for
                      registry-shopping and <br>
                      > address outflow. <br>
                      I agree that RIR-shopping is a concern and there
                      is a real chance that <br>
                      strict policy against leasing in the ARIN region
                      may encourage the <br>
                      practice. However, I don't believe this should be
                      the concern of the <br>
                      ARIN community in deciding how to allocate
                      resources in our corner of <br>
                      the world. If other RIR communities want to make
                      other decisions, they <br>
                      are endowed with that freedom under the current
                      system. I don't think <br>
                      "everyone is jumping off the bridge so we should
                      too" makes for a good <br>
                      argument. What would convince me is hard data that
                      shows how the RIPE <br>
                      community has benefited from the elimination of
                      the needs-test in the <br>
                      transfer process, or data that demonstrates what
                      tangible issue your <br>
                      policy proposal would solve in the ARIN region.
                      "Current ARIN policy <br>
                      prevents the use of leased-out addresses as
                      evidence of utilization" <br>
                      doesn't strike me as a complete problem statement.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Mike-I
                      consider this also a concession that what I said
                      is true about "providing an incentive" which is as
                      far as I went.<br>
                      <br>
                      > Opposing this policy reduces the lessor pool
                      and drives up lease rates. <br>
                      This argument cuts both ways. I would argue that
                      supporting the policy <br>
                      drives up transfer market prices by increasing
                      speculation by entities <br>
                      that have no stake in the shared Internet resource
                      aside from the rights <br>
                      to use IPv4 addresses. Basic math tells us that
                      higher prices in the <br>
                      transfer markets will result in higher prices in
                      the leasing market, as <br>
                      well as resulting in fewer blocks available to
                      networks who wish to <br>
                      obtain space directly from the RIR via transfers.
                      I do not see this as a <br>
                      benefit to the community. As I have stated before,
                      I am unmotivated by <br>
                      the impacts on lessees/lessors of keeping the
                      current policy or <br>
                      strengthening the requirement to provision actual
                      services on an <br>
                      operational network. If networks choose to lease,
                      they may pay more, <br>
                      which is a similar situation for any
                      capital-intensive resource that is <br>
                      subject to leasing. Developing policy to keep
                      lease rates low is not the <br>
                      concern of the ARIN community or this PDP, but
                      rather developing policy <br>
                      that supports efficient and technically competent
                      administration of the <br>
                      region's resources. <o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Mike-
                      I agree with your first contention, that this
                      policy could in fact lead to price increases on
                      the transfer market.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">But
                      the basic math you refer to is the linkage between
                      the transfer market and the lease market.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Transfer
                      prices have doubled this year, lease rates have
                      not doubled, they haven't risen anywhere nearly as
                      quickly.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">I
                      think the lack of ability to purchase blocks to
                      feed the lease market in ARIN serves to loosen
                      that coupling between the lease and transfer
                      market.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Thanks
                      for phrasing it as "if networks choose to lease",
                      as that is a clear understanding of the way things
                      work currently.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Lessors
                      and lessees are choosing to engage in leasing
                      because they both see an advantage.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">So
                      let me admit my assertion that lease rates would
                      drop with this policy is just an assumption and
                      not an assertion.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <blockquote>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
                      > Opposing this policy dis-incentivizes
                      accurate registration <br>
                      If networks choose to report inaccurate or
                      fraudulent SWIP data in order <br>
                      to evade the requirements of the current policy,
                      then they are not <br>
                      allocating addresses in accordance with ARIN
                      policy and could be subject <br>
                      to enforcement actions from ARIN. Although I wish
                      ARIN was more <br>
                      aggressive in maintaining an accurate WHOIS
                      database and abuse contacts, <br>
                      I would argue that the current situation in the
                      ARIN region is quite <br>
                      good compared to other RIRs in this respect, since
                      there has been a <br>
                      regular review process to ensure database accuracy
                      for many years. <br>
                      Either way, this policy proposal doesn't
                      fundamentally change reporting <br>
                      requirements, but simply blesses networks who
                      currently have "something <br>
                      to hide" to report their usage accurately.
                      Certainly, I can see how the <br>
                      policy benefits the community in this limited
                      sense. Still, I am <br>
                      unconvinced that the net effects would be positive
                      and I do not support <br>
                      the policy.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Mike
                      - Thanks, I think we understand that you do not
                      support the policy but I don't think that you
                      overcame my assertion this time.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Because
                      currently there is no "justification benefit" for
                      accurate registration, but this policy would
                      create one.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif">Regards,<br>
                  Mike<o:p></o:p></span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
            </div>
            <div>
              <blockquote>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
                </div>
                <div>
                  <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                      style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><br>
                      <br>
                      - Isaiah <br>
                      <br>
                      On 9/21/2021 4:29 PM, Mike Burns wrote: <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Hi Isaiah, <br>
                      > <br>
                      > That RIPE situation is an unfortunate
                      artifact of their reserve pool <br>
                      > for new entrants. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Can you share the percent of those /24s that
                      begin with 185? <br>
                      > <br>
                      > You didn’t support Noah’s theory that this
                      policy proposal would lead <br>
                      > to the demise of RIRs, so let’s address your
                      particular objections. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > First you wrote “The onus is not on ARIN to
                      sanctify practices that <br>
                      > some are already engaging in, but rather to
                      distribute number <br>
                      > resources in accordance with community
                      developed policy.” <br>
                      > <br>
                      > My answer is that this policy proposal
                      continues to distribute number <br>
                      > resources in accordance with community
                      developed policy. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Second you wrote:” If other RIR communities
                      choose to make other <br>
                      > decisions, that doesn't make it the correct
                      decision for the ARIN region.” <br>
                      > <br>
                      > I would agree with you, but that doesn’t mean
                      we should ignore <br>
                      > relevant data from our sister registry, and I
                      brought up RIPE to deal <br>
                      > with Noah’s objection about what will happen
                      should this policy pass” <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Third you wrote “There is a waiting list
                      available for legitimate new <br>
                      > entrants, and I don't buy the argument that
                      networks with greater than <br>
                      > a /20 cannot afford the capital outlay to
                      purchase a block.” <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Then you won’t have to worry about leasing,
                      because you claim there is <br>
                      > no market for it. The waiting list is not a
                      guaranty, and has an <br>
                      > unpredictable schedule for address delivery.
                      I gave an example of a <br>
                      > WISP seeking to try out a new area, and why
                      leasing addresses might be <br>
                      > quite attractive to that WISP for entirely
                      legitimate reasons. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > I feel I have addressed what I see as the
                      objections you have noted. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Now, why not try to actually address even one
                      of my assertions and <br>
                      > tell me where it fails? <br>
                      > <br>
                      > “Opposing this policy means the only lessors
                      are the lucky incumbents. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Opposing this policy means a lack of policy
                      is preferred, despite the <br>
                      > open practice of leasing. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Opposing this policy provides incentive for
                      registry-shopping and <br>
                      > address outflow. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Opposing this policy reduces the lessor pool
                      and drives up lease rates. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Opposing this policy dis-incentivizes
                      accurate registration” <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Regards, <br>
                      > Mike <br>
                      > <br>
                      > *From:* Isaiah Olson <<a
                        href="mailto:isaiah@olson-network.com"
                        target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">isaiah@olson-network.com</a>>
                      <br>
                      > *Sent:* Tuesday, September 21, 2021 5:07 PM <br>
                      > *To:* Mike Burns <<a
                        href="mailto:mike@iptrading.com" target="_blank"
                        moz-do-not-send="true">mike@iptrading.com</a>>;
                      'Noah' <<a href="mailto:noah@neo.co.tz"
                        target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">noah@neo.co.tz</a>>
                      <br>
                      > *Cc:* 'ARIN-PPML List' <<a
                        href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net" target="_blank"
                        moz-do-not-send="true">arin-ppml@arin.net</a>>
                      <br>
                      > *Subject:* Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove
                      Circuit Requirement <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Mike, <br>
                      > <br>
                      > I would hardly say it's time for a funeral in
                      RIPE, but I would ask, <br>
                      > do you think it's a coincidence that roughly
                      75% of the /24 blocks <br>
                      > that I have blackholed on my network for
                      spamming my email server are <br>
                      > registered to anonymous hosting companies in
                      the RIPE region? I don't <br>
                      > agree that the results of the RIPE policy
                      speak for themselves, and I <br>
                      > would love to see more data aggregated by
                      some of the more talented <br>
                      > internet sleuths on here regarding the
                      proportion of abuse activity <br>
                      > split up by RIR. I also disagree with all
                      five of your assumptions <br>
                      > about opposing this policy. The onus is not
                      on ARIN to sanctify <br>
                      > practices that some are already engaging in,
                      but rather to distribute <br>
                      > number resources in accordance with community
                      developed policy. If <br>
                      > other RIR communities choose to make other
                      decisions, that doesn't <br>
                      > make it the correct decision for the ARIN
                      region. I don't support any <br>
                      > policy that amplifies the practice of leasing
                      because I reject your <br>
                      > arguments about the necessity of the
                      practice. There is a waiting list <br>
                      > available for legitimate new entrants, and I
                      don't buy the argument <br>
                      > that networks with greater than a /20 cannot
                      afford the capital outlay <br>
                      > to purchase a block. Please feel free to
                      provide any data you can to <br>
                      > back up your five assertions. For my
                      assertion, please consider the <br>
                      > following: <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Prefixes exchanged within the RIPE region as
                      sales originate have <br>
                      > the highest fraction of blacklisted IPs,
                      which is statistically <br>
                      > significant. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Source: <br>
                      > <a
href="https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/139789/1/VGiotsas_PAM2020_IPv4_Transfers_abuse.pdf"
                        target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/139789/1/VGiotsas_PAM2020_IPv4_Transfers_abuse.pdf</a>
                      <br>
                      > <<a
href="https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/139789/1/VGiotsas_PAM2020_IPv4_Transfers_abuse.pdf"
                        target="_blank" moz-do-not-send="true">https://eprints.lancs.ac.uk/id/eprint/139789/1/VGiotsas_PAM2020_IPv4_Transfers_abuse.pdf</a>>
                      <br>
                      > <br>
                      > - Isaiah <br>
                      > <br>
                      > On 9/21/2021 3:24 PM, Mike Burns wrote: <br>
                      > <br>
                      > I am in total agreement with your sentiment
                      and the requirement <br>
                      > for a circuit should continue to stand. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Any policy that removes such a requirement
                      would render the <br>
                      > management of Internet Number Resources by
                      the registry useless <br>
                      > and thereby essentially lead to no need for
                      the registry after all. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Noah <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Hi Noah, <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Are you aware that there has been no
                      needs-test for RIPE transfers <br>
                      > for many years and the RIR system hasn’t
                      collapsed? <br>
                      > <br>
                      > To make it clear, in RIPE you can purchase
                      address space with the <br>
                      > sole purpose of leasing it out. And you have
                      been able to do that <br>
                      > for many years now.  Plainly, openly, within
                      all policy. So please <br>
                      > let us know where to send the flowers for
                      RIPE’s funeral. That <br>
                      > goes for others who predict that bad things
                      will follow from <br>
                      > adopting this policy, please keep RIPE’s
                      example in mind to <br>
                      > provide a reality check. The experiment has
                      already been performed. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Owen has already pointed out the futility of
                      the circuit <br>
                      > requirement in practice,  yet you think
                      that’s what keeps the RIR <br>
                      > system functional? <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Opposing this policy means the only lessors
                      are the lucky incumbents. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Opposing this policy means a lack of policy
                      is preferred, despite <br>
                      > the open practice of leasing. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Opposing this policy provides incentive for
                      registry-shopping and <br>
                      > address outflow. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Opposing this policy reduces the lessor pool
                      and drives up lease <br>
                      > rates. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Opposing this policy dis-incentivizes
                      accurate registration. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Let me know if any of these assertions
                      require amplification, I <br>
                      > guess some may not be clear but this is
                      already too long. <br>
                      > <br>
                      > Regards, <br>
                      > Mike <br>
                      > <o:p></o:p></span></p>
                </div>
              </blockquote>
            </div>
            <div>
              <p class="MsoNormal"><span
                  style="font-size:10.0pt;font-family:"Verdana",sans-serif"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
            </div>
          </div>
          <p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
        </blockquote>
      </div>
    </blockquote>
  </body>
</html>