"rent seeking" is exactly the term I was looking for to describe this situation.
It is generally regarded as detrimental to an economy. See:
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking>
On 9/22/2021 12:17 PM, Chris Woodfield wrote:
I believe that IP resources are a public good, and as such, must be managed in a
way that is equitable as practically possible.
For 30+ years, before the existence of ARIN - a cornerstone of equitable
management of this particular public good has been that IP blocks should be
registered by operators, and that organizations that hold allocations should be
holding them because they have an operational need for them to run their and/or
their connectivity customer’s networks.
With this proposal in the NRPM, an entirely new type of LIR will be allowed to
exist, one that does not operate a network and does not use the address space
for its own needs, instead utilizing the allocated space purely as a source of
lease income. Even more so, that type of organization has multiple business
benefits: it can officially hold address allocations whose transfer value is
virtually guaranteed to go up over time, while at the same time earning income
via leases. Sounds like a great business opportunity, to be honest.
However, I fear that such organizations will create severe distortions in the
transfer market, as these organizations will be able to acquire resources with
virtually no limit to their holdings, and will be able to acquire new space as
quickly as they’re able to lease it out. Thus, those who wish to obtain their
own addresses will find doing so increasingly difficult and expensive, and will
find themselves with little choice but to... lease addresses from this type of
organization. Thus furthering the extent of the market distortion.
In many other business, we refer to this as “rent seeking”, and is not looked
upon favorably.
Hopefully, this sufficiently explains why I “don’t like leasing”.
Thanks,
-Chris
On Sep 22, 2021, at 8:50 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Chris,
I am still unclear. So the “risk” you refer to is the inability to purchase
new blocks using leases as justification?
I’m not entirely sure how that constitutes a risk, unless you mean they will
run out of addresses they need for themselves. Is that their risk?
It seems like you are objecting to a proposal to allow using leased addresses
as justification by simply stating that you don’t like leasing.
Why can’t you stand behind this distribution method, can you be clear on your
objection to leasing?
Because certainly this proposal facilitates leasing.
I guess we are coming to the crux of things now, I’ve asked a few people who
have opposed this policy why, and for some it comes down to disapproving of
leasing. Now I’ve asked why.
A good reason, to me, is that leasing often serves the needs of miscreants.
But leasing is allowed, so miscreants are currently being served. My
experience tells me that miscreants have the advantage over most incumbent
lessors, who are generally not in the business of leasing addresses.
ARIN policy prevents newcomers into the leasing business, and I think
professional lessors will provide some balance against miscreants if they were
allowed to enter that market.
Regards,
Mike
*From:*Chris Woodfield <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Sent:*Wednesday, September 22, 2021 11:33 AM
*To:*PPML <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:*Owen DeLong <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>; Mike Burns
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement
I’m speaking to the risk that an organization that engages in leasing address
blocks without providing related connectivity services. Given that these
blocks cannot currently be used as justification for additional space, an
organization that does so would not qualify for additional space should they
require it, unless they are falsifying the nature of the allocations in their
justification documentation (which, of course, is a policy violation that
could lead to that organizations’s allocations being reclaimed if discovered).
This policy proposal, per the problem statement, is explicitly aimed at
removing that risk, and as such, putting ARIN’s stamp of approval on this type
of lease practice, and in fact, allows organizations to require additional
space which it could then lease out, without the need to provide the network
services associated with the blocks being leased. Which is a type of IP block
monetization that I simply cannot stand behind.
As such, I remain opposed to this proposal.
-C
On Sep 22, 2021, at 7:00 AM, Mike Burns <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Hi Chris,
Can you be more specific on which inherent risk this policy would remove?
Somebody +1’d this, but I don’t understand what you mean.
I don’t even know which party’s risk is being commented on.
Regards,
Mike
*From:*ARIN-PPML <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>*On Behalf Of*Chris Woodfield
*Sent:*Tuesday, September 21, 2021 9:21 PM
*To:*Owen DeLong <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Cc:*PPML <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
*Subject:*Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement
On Sep 21, 2021, at 10:22 AM, Owen DeLong <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
This policy doesn’t affect that… Leasing of address space you already have
is permitted under current policy and cannot be grounds for revocation of
address space.
The change in this policy proposal is not to permit or deny leasing, but to
permit leased addresses to be considered utilized for purposes of
determining eligibility for additional address acquisition.
You are correct that the proposal may not permit or prohibit leasing, but it
does (intentionally, per the problem statement) remove one of the inherent
risks of the practice, and as such, in my view, is effectively an endorsement.
As such, my opposition stands.
-C
Owen
On Sep 21, 2021, at 08:22 , Chris Woodfield <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Writing in opposition. I do not support the practice of leasing IP address
resources. Organizations who have received larger amounts of IP address
space than what they are efficiently utilizing are free to relieve
themselves of their excess space via the transfer market.
Thanks,
-Chris
On Sep 21, 2021, at 8:06 AM, ARIN <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
On 16 September 2021, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted
"ARIN-prop-302: Remove Circuit Requirement " as a Draft Policy.
Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6 is below and can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_6/
<https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_6/>
You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will
evaluate the discussion in order to assess the conformance of this draft
policy with ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated
in the Policy Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are:
* Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration
* Technically Sound
* Supported by the Community
The PDP can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/
<https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/>
Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at:
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/
<https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/>
Regards,
Sean Hopkins
Senior Policy Analyst
American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)
Draft Policy ARIN-2021-6: Remove Circuit Requirement
Problem Statement:
Current ARIN policy prevents the use of leased-out addresses as evidence
of utilization.
Policy statement:
Replace
“2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR) A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an
IR that primarily assigns address space to the users of the network
services that it provides. LIRs are generally Internet Service Providers
(ISPs), whose customers are primarily end users and possibly other ISPs.”
with
“2.4. Local Internet Registry (LIR) A Local Internet Registry (LIR) is an
IR that primarily assigns address space to users of the network. LIRs are
generally Internet Service Providers (ISPs), whose customers are primarily
end users and possibly other ISPs.”
Timetable for implementation: Immediate
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
<https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
Please [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>if you experience any
issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
<https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml>
Please [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
--
John Santos
Evans Griffiths & Hart, Inc.
781-861-0670 ext 539
_______________________________________________
ARIN-PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
