<html><head><meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8"></head><body dir="auto"><div><br></div>Hello<div><br>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. <div><br></div><div><div dir="ltr">Bruce C</div><div dir="ltr"><br><blockquote type="cite">On Sep 9, 2022, at 9:44 AM, Fernando Frediani <fhfrediani@gmail.com> wrote:<br><br></blockquote></div><blockquote type="cite"><div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<p>Hello</p>
<p>There is no such error in the proposal.<br>
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. <br>
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.<br>
</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 24/08/2022 11:04, Mike Burns wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite" cite="mid:063101d8b7c2$77e20830$67a61890$@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"; }
@font-face { font-family: Calibri; }
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal { margin: 0in; font-size: 11pt; font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; }
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink { color: rgb(5, 99, 193); text-decoration: underline; }
span.EmailStyle18 { font-family: Calibri, sans-serif; color: windowtext; font-weight: normal; font-style: normal; }
.MsoChpDefault { font-size: 10pt; }
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">Opposed, I think the proposal contains
errors that should be fixed before the discussion proceeds.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">For example this statement :<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“<span style="color:#333333;background:white">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.”<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333333;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333333;background:white">If it is not in their
policy manuals, how can the proposers state leasing is not
authorized?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333333;background:white">Where do the
proposers think authority comes from, if not from policy and
contract?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333333;background:white">Are they just
assuming that all things are prohibited unless they are
explicitly allowed?<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333333;background:white">That would be an
interesting way to read the policy manual, if that is the
belief, we should discuss that.<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333333;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333333;background:white">Beyond that there is
the very next sentence:<o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333333;background:white">” Nothing is
currently mentioned in RIPE about this and it is not
acceptable as a justification of the need. “ <o:p></o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><span style="color:#333333;background:white"><o:p> </o:p></span></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">So the first two sentences in the
“situation at other RIRs” are problematic/false.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Might I suggest fixing those before we move
forward, and also can you please define the word leasing?<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<br>
Mike<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>
<p class="MsoNormal"><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>
<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> ARIN-PPML <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net"><arin-ppml-bounces@arin.net></a>
<b>On Behalf Of </b>ARIN<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Tuesday, August 23, 2022 12:29 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> PPML <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net"><arin-ppml@arin.net></a><br>
<b>Subject:</b> [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9:
Leasing Not Intended<o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
</div>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">On 18 August 2022, the ARIN Advisory
Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-308: Leasing Not Intended" as
a Draft Policy.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9 is below and can
be found at:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_9/" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_9/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number
Resource Administration<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">* Technically Sound<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">* Supported by the Community<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The PDP can be found at:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Draft Policies and Proposals under
discussion can be found at: <a href="https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/" moz-do-not-send="true" class="moz-txt-link-freetext">https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/</a><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Regards,<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Sean Hopkins<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Senior Policy Analyst<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">American Registry for Internet Numbers
(ARIN)<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not
Intended<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Problem Statement:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">“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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">However, with the spirit of the IPv4
allocation policies being the same, there is not an equivalent
text for IPv4, neither for ASNs.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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).<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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)”.”<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Policy statement:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Actual Text (to be replaced by New Text):<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">6.4.1. Address Space Not to be Considered
Property<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">New Text<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">1.5. Internet Number Resources Not to be
Considered Property<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">The policies in this document are based
upon the understanding that Internet Number Resources are
allocated/assigned for use rather than owned.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Therefore, the resources can’t be
considered property.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Timetable for implementation: Immediate <o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">Situation in other Regions:<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal">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.<o:p></o:p></p>
<p class="MsoNormal"><o:p> </o:p></p>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset class="moz-mime-attachment-header"></fieldset>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a>
Please contact <a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext" href="mailto:info@arin.net">info@arin.net</a> if you experience any issues.
</pre>
</blockquote>
<span>_______________________________________________</span><br><span>ARIN-PPML</span><br><span>You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to</span><br><span>the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net).</span><br><span>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:</span><br><span>https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</span><br><span>Please contact info@arin.net if you experience any issues.</span><br></div></blockquote></div></div></body></html>