> On Sep 22, 2021, at 09:12 , 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. > I assure you that Michael well and truly fully got it and understood it completely.
Michael reacted exactly as I predicted ARIN would react and made exactly the point I intended. > 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.” > Not my intent… If we’re going to ban leasing, let’s ban leasing in all forms. > 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*. > Please do not put words into my mouth. If you want a policy that does something other than what I intended, submit your own. If you don’t k now how to fill out the simple form, I’m happy to help you. My proposal said exactly what I intended and provoked exactly the response I intended. We should either accept leasing or ban it. The half-way pretense that we are engaged in is a form of mental self-gratification which is, IMHO, as inappropriate as if I had used the clinical term for physical self-gratification on the mailing list. Owen > 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] >> <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 contact [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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
