Hi PPML, Just a reminder to the community that we as shepherds are entertaining suggestions to clarify the problem statement in a way that might help provide a basis for the policy to undergo development and advancement.
Please feel free to share your ideas. Regards, Matthew Wilder On Tue, Aug 9, 2022 at 7:08 AM Sylvain Baya <[email protected]> wrote: > Dear ARIN-PPML, > > Please find my comments below; inline... > > Le lundi 8 août 2022, Andrew Dul <[email protected]> a écrit : > >> ARIN Draft Policy 2021-6 was retitled earlier this year as “Permit IPv4 >> Leased Addresses for Purposes of Determining Utilization for Future >> Allocations” and > > >> >> > Hi Andrew, > Thank you for your email, brother! > > ...i want to recall that the INRS (Internet Numbers > Resource System) [1] directs us about which entity > are delegated/designated to, regionally and locally, > distribute INRs to other Orgs in need-basis. These > are RIR, LIR/NIR & ISP :-/ > Yes! sub-allocations/assignments exist! Why not > simply use it? > > Also, INRs are not properties... > > imho! leasing opposes to need-basis utilization; > unless it's fully managed by the delegated RIR, > who's not really bound to need-basis constraint the > same manner as LIRs are. > > If there is a *need* for a "leasing" policy; then imho, > it would be to help in solving community problems; > and not individual ones. > > An example of a community problem could be: > "shortening the INR's wainting list". > > |Q1. Which Org *should* be eligible to obtain INRs > | in lease? > | > | A1. In order to obtain INRs in lease, from the RIR, > | an Org *must* join the INRs Waiting List and check > | the LIAL (List of INRs Available for Leasing) > | option. > | > |Q2. Which Org *must* be allowed to provide INRs > | for lease? > | Which Resource Holder should provide INRs > | through leasing; in order to satisfy others' needs? > | > | A2. If, after one year of holdering INRs, an Org is > | not able to use 40 % of the numbers allocated to > | it; then part of the other 60 % should join a List of > | INRs Available for Leasing (LIAL); in order to not > | fall under | the policy trap regarding minimum > | utilization. After three years these unused INRs > | join automatically the LIAL list. > | > |Q3. What's the benefit of Orgs which provide the > | INRs they hold for lease? > | > | A3. If it's true that a resource holder who have not > | used a given percentage of its allocated/assigned; > | INRs would see those INRs reclaimed; then a draft > | policy which could help them to hold those INRs > | for more long would be of great help...imho :-/ > | > |Q4. ... > | > | A4. ... > > > Would it solve a community problem? > What's the community problem to solve? > > Please share your own thoughts; even to contradict > mine :-) > > Shalom, > --sb. > > > >> >> the text was also updated based upon feedback from the community at the >> Fall 2021 meeting. >> >> https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/drafts/2021_6/ >> >> The draft did not receive sufficient support in the shepherds opinion to >> move this policy toward a recommended draft policy. Since this time the >> shepherds have been discussing with various members of the Internet >> Community and the ARIN AC on a possible path forward for this draft policy. >> >> One of the ideas was to take a look at the problem statement and perhaps >> update and clarify the problem statement in hopes that this process would >> provide additional ideas to move the process forward. >> >> The current draft policy problem statement is as follows: >> >> Problem Statement: Current ARIN policy prevents the use of leased-out >> addresses as evidence of utilization. >> >> Some contributors have suggested that there are perhaps two or more >> issues that are attempting to be solved here. >> >> Organizations would like the ability to lease some of their address >> space and not limit the receipt of future IPv4 transfers due the fact that >> ARIN’s evaluation of utilization considers leased space today to be unused. >> >> Organizations who wish to obtain address space are not able to pledge >> the address space as collateral in a financial transaction. The RSA and >> ARIN policy today limit the ability of IPv4 address resources to be >> transferred to another party (financier) without that party showing need >> for use on an operational network. >> >> >> We invite your feedback on these thoughts and ideas to help us rework the >> problem statement and future policy language solving these issues. >> >> In particular, do you believe the problem statement needs to be rewritten >> to clarify the issue the Internet Community is trying to solve here? >> >> If so, what problem or problems do you believe that the Internet >> Community needs to solve and what problem statement(s) make sense to >> restart the conversation around this topic? >> >> Thanks in advance for your feedback, >> >> Andrew >> >> [...] >> >> > > -- > > Best Regards ! > __ > baya.sylvain[AT cmNOG DOT cm]|<https://cmnog.cm/dokuwiki/Structure> > Subscribe to Mailing List: <https://lists.cmnog.cm/mailman/listinfo/cmnog/ > > > __ > #LASAINTEBIBLE|#Romains15:33«Que LE #DIEU de #Paix soit avec > vous tous! #Amen!» > #MaPrière est que tu naisses de nouveau. #Chrétiennement > «Comme une biche soupire après des courants d’eau, ainsi mon âme soupire > après TOI, ô DIEU!»(#Psaumes42:2) > > _______________________________________________ > 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.
