Hi Fernando,
Leasing is not defined in the proposal and the language in the proposal is explicitly false in at least one case regarding RIPE. I’m not sure why you don’t just fix it and add a lease definition. You have not addressed the problem of small businesses who can’t afford to purchase but can afford to lease. You keep saying they should just do a transfer instead, totally disregarding the cost of a transfer. Your policy denies them the ability to get needed IPv4 and you have not answered this objection. Regards, Mike From: ARIN-PPML <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 12:40 PM To: 'arin-ppml' <arin-ppml@arin.net> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended Hi Em 12/09/2022 13:09, Mike Burns escreveu: Hi Fernando, Why not go back and fix the proposal language mis-describing the situation at other RIRs and define leasing within your proposal, and provide us with a new version to consider? The situation in the other RIRs are most correct and confirmed. Only RIPE has clarified in a way previously and now seems to have changed their mind slightly. In any way this is not an excuse for the proposal to keep its normal discussion as it is not a critic point that doesn't change the spirit of the proposal and its main point to be discussed which is making it clear in the policy text. Leasing in this context is already well defined based mainly on direct connectivity as discussed in several messages. I will simply point out that leasing is effectively a transfer to those in need, and that not everybody in need can afford a transfer purchase. This policy would prevent those in need from receiving blocks unless they have deep pockets. It’s not fair to smaller, less capitalized businesses who need IPv4, so I remain opposed. This looks more emotional words in order to try protect the leasing practice than a real world that have options available within the rules and without having do things in a way that is bad for most community . While I don't deny that some organizations may be having access to small chunk of address via these practices this can not be more important than things like the security of the resource holder not having immediate control of what is used by the customer and more important than that the unfairness that is causes specially in times of IPv4 Exhaustion in order to make sure resources go *directly* (which means from ARIN) to the resource holder and not from um resources holder to someone that has the ability to get these addresses by themselves via a transfer for example. Fernando Regards, Mike From: ARIN-PPML <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> On Behalf Of Fernando Frediani Sent: Saturday, September 10, 2022 1:25 PM To: arin-ppml <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net> <arin-ppml@arin.net> Subject: Re: [arin-ppml] Draft Policy ARIN-2022-9: Leasing Not Intended I don't understand your way to oppose this proposal. You want to oppose it based a small subset of 'situation in other regions' text ? That your only point to oppose this proposal ? The text clearly says the leasing of addresses is not authorized explicitly in the policy manuals and in most RIRs it has been already confirmed this is not allowed in most RIRs (exactly as it should be). In RIPE that you are picking in order to try oppose this proposal it mentions specifically that this cannot be used as a justification of need and it is obvious you cannot go to RIPE, ask for addresses and justify that you will use them to lease to someone else, pretending to be a sub-RIR. It is just simple. In ARIN this proposal will make it very clear not only for justification of need which is already forbidden but also later on for usage and that is the right thing to do in order to avoid more unfairness with the whole community in times of IPv4 exhaustion. What is the logic for not being able to justify the need based on leasing but be allowed to used for them for leasing later on ? The point here is quiet simple and most people are able to understand: if you have a need to keep IP resources as a resource holder for justified need proposes you are fine to keep the addresses indefinitely, if not your should either transfer them to whoever has real need or return them back to ARIN so them can be directly assigned by ARIN to any member who really needs them and have no intermediaries in the middle pretending to be a RIR and bringing real security issues to the whole Internet. Fernando On 10/09/2022 14:01, Mike Burns wrote: Fernando, Your proposal says leasing is banned at other RIRs. I am telling you once again that leasing is NOT banned at RIPE and leased addresses CAN be used as justification at RIPE. I speak from direct experience. And once again there is no policy nor contract requirement to utilize addresses at ARIN for their originally intended purposes, ergo leasing is not prohibited to address holders at ARIN. Please define the word leasing as that impacts enforcement and other issues. This proposal remains deeply flawed. So I remain deeply opposed. Regards, Mike ---- On Fri, 09 Sep 2022 12:44:10 -0400 Fernando Frediani <mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com> <fhfredi...@gmail.com> wrote --- 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 <mailto:arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> <arin-ppml-boun...@arin.net> On Behalf Of ARIN Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2022 12:29 PM To: PPML <mailto:arin-ppml@arin.net> <arin-ppml@arin.net> 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 (ARIN-PPML@arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net> ). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues. _______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net <mailto:ARIN-PPML@arin.net> ). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net <mailto:i...@arin.net> if you experience any issues.
_______________________________________________ ARIN-PPML You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List (ARIN-PPML@arin.net). Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at: https://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml Please contact i...@arin.net if you experience any issues.
