> On Sep 22, 2021, at 10:53 , Jon Lewis <[email protected]> wrote: > > On Wed, 22 Sep 2021, Michael Abejuela wrote: > >> This policy proposal is outside the scope of the ARIN Number Resource Policy >> Manual and similarly, discussions regarding pricing structures that members >> of the community >> must charge for their services are wholly outside the scope of the PPML. >> Further discussion of this policy must cease, and it is advisable for >> participants on PPML to be >> cautious when commenting on any proposals that may be seen as an >> unreasonable restraint of trade, specifically including restrictions on >> pricing or pricing models via >> contract, combination, or conspiracy. ARIN policy does not impose any such >> restrictions on trade or pricing; and any attempt to propose or discuss such >> policies are >> prohibited. >> Please focus all proposals and discussions on policies that meet the >> Internet number resource policy principles of 1) enabling fair and impartial >> number resource >> administration, 2) technically sound (providing for uniqueness and usability >> of number resources), and 3) supported by the community. Discussions about >> pricing and/or >> pricing models for members of the community are not appropriate for this >> mailing list and outside the scope of the Policy Development Process (PDP). > > The referenced policy proposal may have been rushed and poorly considered, > but I think the question raised by it is valid. Does the membership consider > "leasing of IP addresses" absent provision of some form of Internet > connectivity, to be a valid behavior for ARIN member LIRs? i.e. Can leased > IPs be counted as utilized?
Not the question it raises. The question it raises is “If we consider leasing without connectivity to be illegitimate allegedly because it distorts pricing in a harmful way, how is it better to permit leasing with connectivity at far higher prices than those general available from lessors that do not provide connectivity?” > If ARIN staff were previously able to "read between the lines" in the NRPM > and conclude that ARIN allocated IPs used by an LIR outside the ARIN region > could not be counted as "utilized" (i.e. a global network operator using some > of their ARIN allocated IPs in Japan), then I can't see how it's either out > of scope or a forbidden topic to discus whether or not the NRPM should be > updated with language to discourage IP leasing. i.e. Leased IPs not > associated with the provision of Internet connectivity will not be considered > "utilized". To the best of my knowledge, ARIN never treated out-of-region utilization as illegitimate so long as the provider had sufficient in-region nexus and met a couple of other requirements. Owen _______________________________________________ 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.
