Opposed. There is no good reason I am aware of for ARIN to require the bundling of IP addressing and connectivity services. The arguments provided in this draft policy are not sound or valid ones.
Scott > On Aug 23, 2022, at 9:28 AM, ARIN <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 18 August 2022, the ARIN Advisory Council (AC) accepted "ARIN-prop-308: > Leasing Not Intended" as a Draft Policy. > > Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9 is below and can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2022_9/ > > You are encouraged to discuss all Draft Policies on PPML. The AC will > evaluate the discussion to assess the conformance of this draft policy with > ARIN's Principles of Internet number resource policy as stated in the Policy > Development Process (PDP). Specifically, these principles are: > > * Enabling Fair and Impartial Number Resource Administration > * Technically Sound > * Supported by the Community > > The PDP can be found at: > > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/pdp/ > > Draft Policies and Proposals under discussion can be found at: > https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/ > > Regards, > > Sean Hopkins > Senior Policy Analyst > American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN) > > > Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended > > Problem Statement: > > “IPv6 Policy (section 6.4.1.) explicitly mention that address space is not a > property. This is also stated in the RSA (section 7.) for all the Internet > Number Resources. > > However, with the spirit of the IPv4 allocation policies being the same, > there is not an equivalent text for IPv4, neither for ASNs. > > Further to that, policies for IPv4 and IPv6 allocations, clearly state that > allocations are based on justified need and not solely on a predicted > customer base. Similar text can be found in the section related to Transfers > (8.1). > > Consequently, resources not only aren’t a property, but also, aren’t > allocated for leasing purposes, only for justified need of the resource > holder and its directly connected customers. > > Therefore, and so that there are no doubts about it, it should be made > explicit in the NRPM that the Internet Resources should not be leased “per > se”, but only as part of a direct connectivity service. At the same time, > section 6.4.1. should be moved to the top of the NRPM (possibly to section 1. > “Principles and Goals of the American Registry for Internet Numbers (ARIN)”.” > > Policy statement: > > Actual Text (to be replaced by New Text): > > 6.4.1. Address Space Not to be Considered Property > > It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of > the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold > property. > > The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that > globally-unique IPv6 unicast address space is allocated/assigned for use > rather than owned. > > New Text > > 1.5. Internet Number Resources Not to be Considered Property > > It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of > the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold > property. > > The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that Internet > Number Resources are allocated/assigned for use rather than owned. > > ARIN allocate and assign Internet resources in a delegation scheme, with an > annual validity, renewable as long as the requirements specified by the > policies in force at the time of renewal are met, and especially the > justification of the need. > > Therefore, the resources can’t be considered property. > > The justification of the need, generically in the case of addresses, implies > their need to directly connect customers. Therefore, the leasing of addresses > is not considered acceptable, nor does it justify the need, if they are not > part of a set of services based, at least, on direct connectivity. > > Even in cases of networks not connected to the Internet, the leasing of > addresses is not admissible, since said sites can request direct assignments > from ARIN and even in the case of IPv4, use private addresses or arrange > transfers. > > Timetable for implementation: Immediate > > Situation in other Regions: > > In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized either and since it > is not explicit in their policy manuals either, this proposal will be > presented as well. > > Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and it is not acceptable as > a justification of the need. In AFRINIC, APNIC and LACNIC, the staff has > confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for the > justification. > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
