Hi John
I don't think anyone discussing this thread is much concerned about
pricing of services between ARIN participants and their customers
really. I am personally not. The confusion may have come from the way
Owen have put the text of this proposal.
What we are discussing so far is only about a proposal to have an
appropriate language to ban Leasing of IP Addresses by LIRs.
Hope this helps to clarify
Regards
Fernando
Em 22/09/2021 14:48, John Curran escreveu:
Fernando -
Michael was 100% correct - do not engage in discussions of pricing or
other terms of service between ARIN participants and their customers.
Doing so is prohibited by US antitrust law and ARIN will not be a
party to facilitating such discussions.
Participants who attempt to violate applicable law in this manner will
be expressly removed from ARIN mailing lists in order to protect the
remainder of the community that is able to participate properly.
Thanks,
/John
John Curran
President and CEO
American Registry for Internet Numbers
On Sep 22, 2021, at 12:12 PM, Fernando Frediani
<[email protected]> wrote:
I believe maybe Michael didn't understand well the matter fully or
got only part of it.
Probably what caused more confusion was how Owen put the part "No
signatory to any ARIN RSA is permitted by policy to engage in a
recurring charge for addresses or a differentiated service charge
based on the number if addresses issued to a customer.". That could
be dubious in the sense that a LIR could not charge administrative
fees when they assign addresses to their connectivity customers.
A simple: "No signatory to any ARIN RSA is permitted by policy to
engage issuing addresses to non-conectivity customers. Addresses must
be provided strictly as part of a contract for connectivity services."
I think Owen tried to put in a way to strengthen his point of view
the LIR lease addresses and by that text they would not permitted to
do even for connectivity customers.Simplifying it would achieve the
objective in the subject without necessarily change the usual way
LIRs allocate addresses to their *connectivity customers*.
Regards
Fernando
On 22/09/2021 13:00, Isaiah Olson wrote:
Hi Michael,
I appreciate you clarifying this issue. If this policy proposal is
considered out of scope, I would ask why Mike's policy proposal to
explicitly allow leasing is considered in-scope for this PDP? If it
is ARIN's position that it "does not impose any such restrictions on
trade or pricing" with regards to pricing structure, why does ARIN
differentiate justified need for transfers (trade) based on the
absence or presence of connectivity services?
I am happy to dispatch with any discussions that are not relevant or
allowed, but I think that your post requires additional
clarification of what topics are not permissible since many of the
issues you have raised as out of scope are germane to other policies
under discussion.
Thanks,
Isaiah
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
_______________________________________________
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.
