Hello
There is no such error in the proposal.
This has been checked as being the interpretation staff gives to the
current policy in most RIRs. APNIC is just an example that have
confirmed it publicly a couples of days ago.
You may not find all the very specific words you may wish for in the
text, but it is not much difficult for them to have such interpretation
given the resources must follow a proper justification of what they will
be used for and that can never be that you will use them for leasing
(rent of lend). ARIN also already confirmed in this very same list they
don't accept it as a justification.
There is no much around the term leasing. If an organization who don't
provide any connectivity services to another simply rent or lend IP
space, with or without a cost associated that is something that must not
be since they no longer have a justification to keep that IP space and
instead should either transfer it to those who really justify or return
to ARIN.
Fernando
On 24/08/2022 11:04, Mike Burns wrote:
Opposed, I think the proposal contains errors that should be fixed
before the discussion proceeds.
For example this statement :
“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.”
If it is not in their policy manuals, how can the proposers state
leasing is not authorized?
Where do the proposers think authority comes from, if not from policy
and contract?
Are they just assuming that all things are prohibited unless they are
explicitly allowed?
That would be an interesting way to read the policy manual, if that is
the belief, we should discuss that.
Beyond that there is the very next sentence:
” Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and it is not
acceptable as a justification of the need. “
Once again the bias is towards prohibition despite language about
leasing being absent from RIPE policy. More to the point, and
something that can’t be drummed-home clearly enough to this community,
RIPE has no needs test at all for transfers and hasn’t for years. And
yet RIPE still exists and operates as an RIR. Even further to the
point, in the one occasion that RIPE performs a needs-test, which is
on inter-regional transfers from ARIN, leased-out addresses are in
fact acceptable as justification. That’s because of two logical
things. First, RIPE understands that the inherent value of the
addresses drives them towards efficient use. Second, RIPE understands
that they are charged with getting addresses into use, not getting
them into use on particular networks.
So the first two sentences in the “situation at other RIRs” are
problematic/false.
Might I suggest fixing those before we move forward, and also can you
please define the word leasing?
This seems poorly though-out to me, and I haven’t started on the meat
of the proposal yet nor how it would be effectively policed and
prohibited.
Regards,
Mike
*From:* ARIN-PPML <[email protected]> *On Behalf Of *ARIN
*Sent:* Tuesday, August 23, 2022 12:29 PM
*To:* PPML <[email protected]>
*Subject:* [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended
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 [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.
