While I’m not entirely in disagreement with Scott’s position, there’s a wide range between “unenforced and routinely ignored” and “trivially circumvented”.
As a general rule, ARIN policy, like any other policy, including laws depends heavily on voluntary compliance with the spirit of the policy by the majority of actors. Unlike laws, ARIN’s policies come with extraordinarily limited enforcement powers, so we depend even more heavily on voluntary compliance. OTOH, unlike laws, ARIN policies are based on the consensus of the community that these re the policies by which they want the registry run. As such, the willingness/desire to operate in contravention of said policies should be rather limited. I’m mostly neutral at this point on whether or not to allow an organization with addresses to monetize those addresses through leasing absent connectivity services. However, what I do not want to see is a situation where we permit the desire to lease space as a justification for obtaining space through the transfer market (or any other mechanism). If you want to leas space you already have, then fine. But the desire to lease space in and of itself should not qualify as “utilization” or “need” in evaluation of any form of resource request. Owen > On Nov 1, 2019, at 15:16 , Scott Leibrand <scottleibr...@gmail.com> wrote: > > If we have restrictions that are unenforced and routinely ignored, those > restrictions need to be removed (or enforced). To do otherwise creates an > environment where everyone is always in violation of the "letter of the law", > thereby reducing respect for the restrictions that we do want to enforce. It > puts at a disadvantage those who attempt to read and follow the rules without > having a tacit understanding of which rules are "really" enforced. It also > leaves open the possibility that the enforcing entity may decide to start > enforcing rules that were previously unenforced, perhaps even in a > capricious, corrupt, or otherwise less-than-ideal manner. > > For all of those reasons, we need to ensure that our rules reflect what we > actually want ARIN to try to enforce. IMO the current policy requiring only a > VPN tunnel or unused switch port as a fig leaf to allow address leasing is > untenable and needs to be changed. I favor changing it by updating the policy > to reflect that address leasing is allowed, and what the requirements should > be. > > -Scott > > On Fri, Nov 1, 2019 at 2:23 PM Ronald F. Guilmette <r...@tristatelogic.com > <mailto:r...@tristatelogic.com>> wrote: > In message <30dbfe0c-f444-ec1c-54ad-62460ab56...@egh.com > <mailto:30dbfe0c-f444-ec1c-54ad-62460ab56...@egh.com>>, > John Santos <j...@egh.com <mailto:j...@egh.com>> wrote: > > >The proposal specifically relates to leasing IP addresses to recipients > >who are NOT receiving connectivity from the lessor. > > As I said, I myself have no position on the proposal under discussion. > > As a general matter however, I have for many years now been concerned > about the promulgation, within the various structures of Internet > governance, of rules which, following adoption, are then rather trivially > circumvented by parties having neither a care for nor a respect for the > intent of the rules in question. > > For that reason, I do believe that it might be helpful to the discussion > of the proposal if the alternatives were made completely clear. > > You've said that the status quo permits leasing in conjunction with > connectivity. But how is "connectivity" defined in this context, > exactly? > > If you are a "provider" and I am your client, may you lease me IP addresses > even if the IP addresses you lease me are ones that I get connectivity to > from some -different- provider? > > Perhaps even more importantly, if leasing IP addresses in conjunction with > "connectivity", however that term is currently defined, is currently A-OK, > but leasing addresses NOT in conjunction with "connectivity" is currently > prohibited, then who is enforcing that existing prohibition, how effective > is the enforcement, and what are some recent examples of such enforcement? > > If in fact there is no actual enforcement of what I infer must be a current > standing prohibition on leasing NOT in conjunction with connectivity, then > what is the point of wasting time debating here the lifting of this > prohibition, a prohibition which has no significance in actual practice > anyway? > > Where I live, spitting on the sidewalk is illegal, but that law is never > enforced, in practice, and thus I frequently see people spitting on the > sidewalk. > > Given this context, I am not moved to passionately argue either for or > against the repeal of our local anti-spitting ordinance, and would > perfer instead to devote my time to more meaningful endeavors. > > > Regards, > rfg > _______________________________________________ > 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 > <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.
_______________________________________________ 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.
