I don’t entirely agree with this characterization. In business, there is often a benefit to conserving cash up front even if it costs more capital over the long run. This is true of virtually every business lease and if it weren’t true and/or valid, there wouldn’t be so many companies providing leases to businesses for all manner of equipment and other assets, including cars.
Owen > On Nov 1, 2019, at 9:19 AM, hostmas...@uneedus.com wrote: > > I also agree with what has been said, and am also opposed to the proposal. > > Some of the justification seems to be in the form of "I cannot afford to buy > a car, so I demand that someone permit me to lease one". Noone is going to > get into the car leasing business unless they can make money. Generally the > only money making segment is going to be the short term, since the lessors > profit is going to make buying cheaper than leasing in the longer term. I > think the same applies to IP leasing. > > In the case of IP address leasing, the only major users of short term leases > are abusers. The advancers of this proposal talk of longer term leases to > get discussion away from those abusers. However, most of the time, someone > wanting a long term lease would be better off to buy, as they can always sell > them on again at the end of the need and often recover nearly all of their > original investment, effectively having a short term use of the address space > nearly free. I think the long term IP leasing business model will not work. > > The only valid leasing I can see is an entity that has excess address space > that they expect to use in the future, and I think that case is already > addressed in the current rules. They would also be unlikely to lease to > someone that is an abuser, since they will have to live with the block > reputation after the lease ends. > > Albert Erdmann > Network Administrator > Paradise On Line Inc. > > On Fri, 1 Nov 2019, Fernando Frediani wrote: > >> Exactly, and the main justification for this proposal to allow subleasing >> is a total misuse of IP addressing and a try to privilege specific companies >> in >> detriment to all others. >> I do not agree that legitimizing leasing as such increases accessibility to >> IPv4 space. Organization already have access to it by transfers. By allowing >> leasing as such prices of both leasing and transfer has the potential to >> rise significantly as organizations will prefer much more to sublease than to >> transfer which is logic to think that will increase pricing in general for >> both and which is only interesting to those who are involved in the >> transaction >> and not to those who are seeking for IPv4 space and have already access via >> transfers. >> The point about keeping the correct registry updated is not a justification >> either because this is already a obligation. If someone is not doing that or >> is >> doing things in a different way is going against the current policies. Any >> organization who signed a contract when they became a member accepted to >> follow >> these rules and they must bound to them, not the other way round. >> As said there is not reasons to issue addresses to anyone who will not be >> using them on a operational network other than legitimate speculation of IP >> space. >> I consider the current text in NRPM as appropriate and therefore I oppose >> this proposal in full. >> Regards >> Fernando >> On 01/11/2019 11:28, Owen DeLong wrote: >> I have trouble with both phrases. >> Even if the resources are to be re-assigned to organizations or entities >> which do not receive connectivity from the original registrant, I see no >> reason to issue addresses to anyone who will not be using them on an >> operational network. >> Owen >> >> On Oct 31, 2019, at 3:10 PM, Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> On Thu, Oct 31, 2019 at 3:03 PM Kiran Malancharuvil <k...@openiadvisors.com> >> wrote: >> Dear All, >> Prior to tomorrow's community discussion of Draft Policy ARIN-2019-18, I >> wanted to offer some clarification and propose some language for >> consideration to address questions posed on the PPML. >> Regarding the question over the intended meaning of "non-connected >> networks", I will clarify that I mean this policy to refer to >> re-assignment to organizations and entities which do not receive >> connectivity from the original registrant. >> As such, I wanted to offer the following alternative edit to 8.5.2: >> >> 8.5.2 Operational Use >> ARIN allocates or assigns number resources to organizations via transfer >> primarily for the purpose of use on an operational network, >> but may allocate or assign number resources to organizations for other >> purposes, including re-assignment to organizations and >> entities which do not receive connectivity from the original registrant. >> I believe this is consistent with the intent of 2019-18, and I would support >> this language. >> >> Alternatively, and more simply, since the sentence referencing >> "non-connected networks" starts with "including" and is therefore not meant >> to be an exclusive "other purpose", but rather illustrative, we can remove >> it entirely. That option would read: >> >> 8.5.2 Operational Use >> ARIN allocates or assigns number resources to organizations via transfer >> primarily for the purpose of use on an operational network, >> but may allocate or assign number resources to organizations for other >> purposes. >> I believe this is materially different than the text above, in that it would >> give ARIN permission to approve transfers for any reason >> whatsoever. ARIN in the past has interpreted such ambiguity in favor of >> allowing whatever is not expressly prohibited. As such, I don't think >> this language accomplishes the original intent, and would oppose it. >> -Scott >> >> >> *please note that the online version of the policy proposal reads >> "solely primarily" instead of "primarily". This is a >> typo due to originally proposing the language with the word >> "solely" in strike-through text (solely), which did not >> translate. >> Further, I want to clarify, as the original author of the proposal, that the >> key intent of the policy is to acknowledge that small and >> medium-sized businesses have a need for IPv4 space, but often cannot afford >> to buy space in the current market. Legitimizing a subleasing >> market increases accessibility to IPv4 space, and opens the market to >> business solutions to facilitate safe, trusted subleasing practices, >> including keeping the correct registry updated. >> Thanks all for the continued discussion. >> Best, >> Kiran >> -- >> Kiran Malancharuvil >> Open-i Advisors >> p: 415 419 9138 >> http://openiadvisors.com >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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. > _______________________________________________ > 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. _______________________________________________ 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.
