Multiple people in the thread have put forth the belief that LIRs leasing addresses without connectivity would distort pricing in the leasing market and in the transfer market.
I have pointed out that LIRs leasing addresses with connectivity generally charge more per address per month than those offering addresses without connectivity. I have asked in light of the alleged fears over market distortion, how this is a greater good. So yes, many have been discussing (indirectly and without violating the anti-trust laws, actually) the impacts of pricing of related services by ARIN participants towards their customers. There is no confusion from how I put the text of my proposal. It was intended exactly as it has been interpreted and exactly to launch the discussion which has ensued. Owen > On Sep 22, 2021, at 10:55 , Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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]> >>> <mailto:[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] >>>> <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] >>> <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.
