<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>Hello Bruce<br>
Thanks for sharing these concerns. Seem reasonable ones.</p>
<p>Talking briefly it is hard to catch all possible details, but I
see that in a network infrastructure transfer to a subsidiary
there are different ways that can be done. In general these
subsidiary may likely have direct connectivity from the parent
company in a provider/customer relationship, but when it is not
the case I think it is fair to think that the subsidiary or
startup company may not need a large amount of addresses to start
with, so the parent willing to support it can easily transfer a
small amount of address via the normal transfer process and allow
that company to start giving more flexibility so it to grow
overtime and if necessary make subsequent transfers.</p>
<p>I understand the scenario you describe may look legitimate, but
the issue is to have too generic and open way that end up allowing
the usage of resources in a forbidden or unfair way that is
damageable to the Internet community.<br>
The most common to start with is, if the resource holder doesn't
provide any type of connectivity to the receiving organization it
may cause security issues because the resource holder does not
have immediate physical control to manager or filter them.</p>
<p>Some of the drivers of the proposal is to make sure that
resources are always used in the most fair way and that doesn't
cause security issues to Internet ecosystem overtime. It doesn't
sound fair, specially in times of IPv4 exhaustion that a shared
resources that nobody owns alone, to go to those who can pay more
rather than to those who really need and justify for them
according to the current rules that everyone is subjected to.
There is no justification to have a prefix allocated from an
organization to another if the second one is perfectly able to get
them directly from a neutral and well established organization -
ARIN.</p>
<p>I hope it helps to address some of your concerns, otherwise we
carry on.</p>
<p>Best regards<br>
Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/09/2022 16:25, Bruce Cornett
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:3A0A0C80-26CD-4738-A080-2498DD54AD27@servlet.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
I still see a significant issue. Consider the transfer of network
infrastructure to a subsidiary or possibly a startup. And for the
moment the parent corporation is not providing connectivity. If
the blocks are transferred to the subsidiary and something goes
awry with that business segment, access to the blocks could be
lost. The end users with connectivity go belly up with
essentially no recourse.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>The reasonable solution is to simply allow the subsidiary or
startup to use the blocks subject to an agreement between the
two parties.
<div><br>
</div>
<div>While I can't suggest I know the driver for the proposal, I
would guess it's to reign in the month to month leasing of
address blocks for dubious services. </div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>It may make sense to make a policy that disallows leasing
for network usage justification. <br>
<br>
<div dir="ltr">Bruce C</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
<blockquote type="cite">On Sep 10, 2022, at 10:13 AM,
Fernando Frediani <a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com"><fhfrediani@gmail.com></a>
wrote:<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<p>Hello Bruce</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 10/09/2022 13:31, Bruce
Cornett via ARIN-PPML wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:00944797-B953-465B-80D8-FC35B2238F8F@servlet.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8">
<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 <a
class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E"
href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com"
moz-do-not-send="true"><fhfrediani@gmail.com></a>
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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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"
moz-do-not-send="true"><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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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 (<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).</span><br>
<span>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list
subscription at:</span><br>
<span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a></span><br>
<span>Please contact <a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated
moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:info@arin.net"
moz-do-not-send="true">info@arin.net</a> if
you experience any issues.</span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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" moz-do-not-send="true">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 (<a
class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net">ARIN-PPML@arin.net</a>).</span><br>
<span>Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription
at:</span><br>
<span><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext"
href="https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml">https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml</a></span><br>
<span>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.</span><br>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>