Mike’s proposal expands trade and therefore can’t be construed as restraint of trade… The real question is if banning leasing in all forms is restraint of trade, why isn’t the current policy also restraint of trade?
Owen > On Sep 22, 2021, at 09:00 , Isaiah Olson <[email protected]> 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.
