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.
