Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j: Next unread messagek: Previous unread messagej a: Jump to all threadsj l: Jump to MailingList overview
4 Aug
2023
4:59 p.m.
Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
-- A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
Regards,
Shaila Sharmin
+8801811447396
19
61
Replies
4 Aug
7:18 p.m.
As written, this policy is absurd.
Virtually all internet numbers in use are leased by the providers that they are registered to.
The question here is whether or not to require that connectivity services be provided as part of the lease arrangement.
I’m OK with whatever the community decides in this regard, though I think that requiring connectivity services
isn’t going to actually have the desired policy effect (there are lots of cheap ways to provide connectivity
to leased addresses that would circumvent the intent of the author).
The situation in other reasons is also mis-stated (or stated in a misleading way). For example, in ARIN, the actual
staff determination (not specified in policy, so subject to challenge) is that addresses utilized for leasing without
connectivity services associated with them do not count as utilized for purposes of determining eligibility for an
additional allocation/assignment. There is no policy or procedure by which ARIN would attempt to reclaim such
addresses based on the fact that they are utilized for non-connected leasing.
Examples of leased addresses in common practice:
1. Party Y gets a circuit from $ISP_A. $ISP_A provides party Y with a /24
and allows party Y to announce that /24 to its other providers.
2. $CABLECO issues DHCP leases of addresses to residential customers.
3. $CABLECO rents blocks of static addresses to Party Y for $X/Month.
4. Party Y places servers in a colocation facility and orders network connecivity
services from $ISP_A, $ISP_B, and $ISP_C. Each of those ISPs provide some
number of addresses to Party Y for the duration of their contract with Party Y.
These are all examples of IP leasing that I am pretty sure the author does not intend
to prohibit, yet would technically be prohibited by th policy as written.
Owen
On Aug 4, 2023, at 09:59, Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
_______________________________________________Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
30 Aug
8:02 a.m.
Hi Owen,
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
In this version of the proposal, we mention leasing only as an indication of what is not allowed in APNIC policies, despite there is not a definition of that in the policies neither in the proposal, because, as you said, there are many possible cases that will fall into what is allowed (somehow “leasing bundled with connectivity services”). The quid is to properly define what is connectivity service.
However, what is clear, is that if you approached APNIC to request IP addresses in order to lease them without connectivity services, your request will be rejected, as confirmed by APNIC. So if you say in the request “I will provide ADSL together with the addresses” and in the future you move to “GPON”, that’s fine, is a technological evolution and you’re not going against your original justification of the need, however, if you stop your connectivity services and just lease the addresses not bundled with any kind of connectivity, that’s clearly against the original justified need and it is considered as a policy violation.
This proposal just want to make that more evident, because today, you need to find it in pieces of text across the policy manual.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 4 ago 2023, a las 21:18, Owen DeLong via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> escribió:As written, this policy is absurd._______________________________________________Virtually all internet numbers in use are leased by the providers that they are registered to.The question here is whether or not to require that connectivity services be provided as part of the lease arrangement.I’m OK with whatever the community decides in this regard, though I think that requiring connectivity servicesisn’t going to actually have the desired policy effect (there are lots of cheap ways to provide connectivityto leased addresses that would circumvent the intent of the author).The situation in other reasons is also mis-stated (or stated in a misleading way). For example, in ARIN, the actualstaff determination (not specified in policy, so subject to challenge) is that addresses utilized for leasing withoutconnectivity services associated with them do not count as utilized for purposes of determining eligibility for anadditional allocation/assignment. There is no policy or procedure by which ARIN would attempt to reclaim suchaddresses based on the fact that they are utilized for non-connected leasing.Examples of leased addresses in common practice:1. Party Y gets a circuit from $ISP_A. $ISP_A provides party Y with a /24and allows party Y to announce that /24 to its other providers.2. $CABLECO issues DHCP leases of addresses to residential customers.3. $CABLECO rents blocks of static addresses to Party Y for $X/Month.4. Party Y places servers in a colocation facility and orders network connecivityservices from $ISP_A, $ISP_B, and $ISP_C. Each of those ISPs provide somenumber of addresses to Party Y for the duration of their contract with Party Y.These are all examples of IP leasing that I am pretty sure the author does not intendto prohibit, yet would technically be prohibited by th policy as written.OwenOn Aug 4, 2023, at 09:59, Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
_______________________________________________Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
1 Sep
6:30 p.m.
If that is the intent, then write a prooposal that says that.
The current proposal does not.
Current policies sort of do and staff certainly has wiggle room to justify the actions you describe within the existing proposal.
The proposal you have drafted creates the potential for an argument that ALL leasing is prohibited and would, thus, create
a potential to reclaim or revoke existing allocations that are (even by your own words) currently perfectly valid.
I remain opposed to this proposal because it doesn’t create policy whose outcomes are (necessarily) aligned with its stated objectives.
Owen
On Aug 30, 2023, at 01:02, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Owen,_______________________________________________In this version of the proposal, we mention leasing only as an indication of what is not allowed in APNIC policies, despite there is not a definition of that in the policies neither in the proposal, because, as you said, there are many possible cases that will fall into what is allowed (somehow “leasing bundled with connectivity services”). The quid is to properly define what is connectivity service.However, what is clear, is that if you approached APNIC to request IP addresses in order to lease them without connectivity services, your request will be rejected, as confirmed by APNIC. So if you say in the request “I will provide ADSL together with the addresses” and in the future you move to “GPON”, that’s fine, is a technological evolution and you’re not going against your original justification of the need, however, if you stop your connectivity services and just lease the addresses not bundled with any kind of connectivity, that’s clearly against the original justified need and it is considered as a policy violation.This proposal just want to make that more evident, because today, you need to find it in pieces of text across the policy manual.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 4 ago 2023, a las 21:18, Owen DeLong via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> escribió:As written, this policy is absurd._______________________________________________Virtually all internet numbers in use are leased by the providers that they are registered to.The question here is whether or not to require that connectivity services be provided as part of the lease arrangement.I’m OK with whatever the community decides in this regard, though I think that requiring connectivity servicesisn’t going to actually have the desired policy effect (there are lots of cheap ways to provide connectivityto leased addresses that would circumvent the intent of the author).The situation in other reasons is also mis-stated (or stated in a misleading way). For example, in ARIN, the actualstaff determination (not specified in policy, so subject to challenge) is that addresses utilized for leasing withoutconnectivity services associated with them do not count as utilized for purposes of determining eligibility for anadditional allocation/assignment. There is no policy or procedure by which ARIN would attempt to reclaim suchaddresses based on the fact that they are utilized for non-connected leasing.Examples of leased addresses in common practice:1. Party Y gets a circuit from $ISP_A. $ISP_A provides party Y with a /24and allows party Y to announce that /24 to its other providers.2. $CABLECO issues DHCP leases of addresses to residential customers.3. $CABLECO rents blocks of static addresses to Party Y for $X/Month.4. Party Y places servers in a colocation facility and orders network connecivityservices from $ISP_A, $ISP_B, and $ISP_C. Each of those ISPs provide somenumber of addresses to Party Y for the duration of their contract with Party Y.These are all examples of IP leasing that I am pretty sure the author does not intendto prohibit, yet would technically be prohibited by th policy as written.OwenOn Aug 4, 2023, at 09:59, Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
_______________________________________________Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
8 Aug
9:34 a.m.
Hi Shaila,
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
Support the proposal with riders.
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
i)How will APNIC identify "not connected" Networks but are suspected to lease IP addresses?
ii) Can limited leasing be allowed to Small, MSME enterprises as a special case ?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
i) APNIC could consider temporarily allocating a separate pool of IP addresses specifically for leasing purposes to needy organisations such as SME(Small and medium enterprises). These addresses could be reclaimed and re-allocated once the leasing period ends, ensuring that the leased addresses are eventually returned to the available pool.
ii) Instead of a blanket prohibition, APNIC may consider implement a controlled and limited leasing policy. This could involve setting specific criteria and guidelines for leasing IP resources, such as duration limits,utilization thresholds, and approve processes. This approach could help prevent abuse while allowing organizations to lease addresses for specific needs.
Regards,
Abhishek Gautam
+919703728000
On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 10:30 PM Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
_______________________________________________Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
30 Aug
8:09 a.m.
Hi Abhishek,
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
A proposal don’t need to identify the steps for a RIR to implement it, and what the proposal do is to ensure that APNIC has a clear mandate in order to decide that if the original justified need is not existing anymore, the delegation is not valid.
I don’t think is fair to allow “special cases”. Why we should do that?
What you propose for temporary leasing from APNIC it will be a totally different proposal and the problem is doing so from an already very small pool … There is already a way to do that: transfers. You can get a small set of addresses, use them as long as you need them, and then transfer them back.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 8 ago 2023, a las 11:34, Abhishek Gautam <ag44av@gmail.com> escribió:Hi Shaila,- Do you support or oppose the proposal?Support the proposal with riders.
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?i)How will APNIC identify "not connected" Networks but are suspected to lease IP addresses?ii) Can limited leasing be allowed to Small, MSME enterprises as a special case ?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?i) APNIC could consider temporarily allocating a separate pool of IP addresses specifically for leasing purposes to needy organisations such as SME(Small and medium enterprises). These addresses could be reclaimed and re-allocated once the leasing period ends, ensuring that the leased addresses are eventually returned to the available pool.ii) Instead of a blanket prohibition, APNIC may consider implement a controlled and limited leasing policy. This could involve setting specific criteria and guidelines for leasing IP resources, such as duration limits,utilization thresholds, and approve processes. This approach could help prevent abuse while allowing organizations to lease addresses for specific needs.Regards,Abhishek Gautam+919703728000_______________________________________________On Fri, Aug 4, 2023 at 10:30 PM Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
_______________________________________________Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
8 Aug
11:55 p.m.
Hi,
I'm opposing the proposed policy change,
I have concerns about the potential implications of the proposed policy change, particularly in regards to granting APNIC the authority to investigate and make decisions regarding the daily usage of IP addresses. The proposed policy change introduces a mechanism for APNIC to actively investigate and make judgments on the daily usage of IP addresses, effectively centralizing decision-making power. This shift raises concerns about the potential for inconsistent enforcement, lack of transparency, and an undue burden on both resource holders and APNIC itself.
Attempting to assess the multitude of use cases and intentions behind leased IP addresses is a daunting and potentially subjective task that could lead to inefficiencies and disputes.
The document mentions that other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) do not authorize address leasing either. However, the absence of address leasing in their policies may not be indicative of a universal best practice. Each region has unique network requirements and circumstances that may warrant different approaches to resource management. Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, We should consider the specific needs of our region when crafting policies. There might be legitimate use cases where IP address leasing could serve as a valuable option. For instance, organizations with varying seasonal demands or temporary infrastructure needs could benefit from leasing IP addresses.
Regards,
Arash Naderpour
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 03:00, Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
_______________________________________________Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
30 Aug
8:15 a.m.
Hi Arash,
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any possible usage of the addresses against the policies. If you justified a need and you now make a different usage, which is against the policies or the original justification, you are in contractual breach, and the RIR has the right not only to investigate it, but also to recover the addresses.
This proposal is not changing that, just making it more obvious, crystal clear.
Transparency is ensured because the policy manual is public, so I don’t understand your point here.
This version of the proposal, even if it mentions leasing, is only to reinforce the point that according to existing policies, the justification of the need is attached to connectivity services. We don’t define leasing on purpose, we say any form of leasing, in the sense of usage different than the original justified need.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 9 ago 2023, a las 1:55, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:Hi,I'm opposing the proposed policy change,I have concerns about the potential implications of the proposed policy change, particularly in regards to granting APNIC the authority to investigate and make decisions regarding the daily usage of IP addresses. The proposed policy change introduces a mechanism for APNIC to actively investigate and make judgments on the daily usage of IP addresses, effectively centralizing decision-making power. This shift raises concerns about the potential for inconsistent enforcement, lack of transparency, and an undue burden on both resource holders and APNIC itself.Attempting to assess the multitude of use cases and intentions behind leased IP addresses is a daunting and potentially subjective task that could lead to inefficiencies and disputes.The document mentions that other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) do not authorize address leasing either. However, the absence of address leasing in their policies may not be indicative of a universal best practice. Each region has unique network requirements and circumstances that may warrant different approaches to resource management. Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, We should consider the specific needs of our region when crafting policies. There might be legitimate use cases where IP address leasing could serve as a valuable option. For instance, organizations with varying seasonal demands or temporary infrastructure needs could benefit from leasing IP addresses.Regards,Arash Naderpour_______________________________________________On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 03:00, Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
_______________________________________________Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
30 Aug
9:18 a.m.
Hi Jordi,
Can you please provide some more details on this:
"APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any possible usage of the addresses against the policies"
I'm interested to know exactly if and how they are authorised to investigate the "usage of the addresses".
Thanks,
Arash Naderpour
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 18:16, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Arash,_______________________________________________APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any possible usage of the addresses against the policies. If you justified a need and you now make a different usage, which is against the policies or the original justification, you are in contractual breach, and the RIR has the right not only to investigate it, but also to recover the addresses.This proposal is not changing that, just making it more obvious, crystal clear.Transparency is ensured because the policy manual is public, so I don’t understand your point here.This version of the proposal, even if it mentions leasing, is only to reinforce the point that according to existing policies, the justification of the need is attached to connectivity services. We don’t define leasing on purpose, we say any form of leasing, in the sense of usage different than the original justified need.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 9 ago 2023, a las 1:55, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:Hi,I'm opposing the proposed policy change,I have concerns about the potential implications of the proposed policy change, particularly in regards to granting APNIC the authority to investigate and make decisions regarding the daily usage of IP addresses. The proposed policy change introduces a mechanism for APNIC to actively investigate and make judgments on the daily usage of IP addresses, effectively centralizing decision-making power. This shift raises concerns about the potential for inconsistent enforcement, lack of transparency, and an undue burden on both resource holders and APNIC itself.Attempting to assess the multitude of use cases and intentions behind leased IP addresses is a daunting and potentially subjective task that could lead to inefficiencies and disputes.The document mentions that other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) do not authorize address leasing either. However, the absence of address leasing in their policies may not be indicative of a universal best practice. Each region has unique network requirements and circumstances that may warrant different approaches to resource management. Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, We should consider the specific needs of our region when crafting policies. There might be legitimate use cases where IP address leasing could serve as a valuable option. For instance, organizations with varying seasonal demands or temporary infrastructure needs could benefit from leasing IP addresses.Regards,Arash Naderpour_______________________________________________On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 03:00, Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
_______________________________________________Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
30 Aug
9:36 a.m.
Hi Arash,
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
All the RIRs have similar provisions, policies are a must to continue receiving services as a member, and this include policies. In the case of APNIC, see https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/membership-agreement/
3.2 Member’s obligations
… d. Comply with this agreement and all APNIC Documents.And of course, Policies are APNIC Documents.
5.1 APNIC Documents
The Member agrees that:
- The APNIC Documents may be amended from time to time in accordance with the Document Review Policy;
- Any such amendments are binding upon the Member;
- APNIC Documents as they exist from time to time form an integral part of and apply fully to this agreement;
- If the membership is either terminated or not renewed, the Member shall continue to be bound by the provisions of this agreement and other APNIC Documents to the extent that the provisions relate to the use of resources or disputes arising from this
agreement or any other APNIC documents.
Usage of address is part of the validity of the justification. See the policy manual. And of course, APNIC can ensure that the license keeps being valid, by means of any method they deem convenient.
4.1. License Renewal
Licenses to account holders shall be renewable on the following conditions:
- The original basis of the delegation remains valid, and ...
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 30 ago 2023, a las 11:18, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:Hi Jordi,Can you please provide some more details on this:"APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any possible usage of the addresses against the policies"I'm interested to know exactly if and how they are authorised to investigate the "usage of the addresses".Thanks,Arash NaderpourOn Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 18:16, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Arash,_______________________________________________APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any possible usage of the addresses against the policies. If you justified a need and you now make a different usage, which is against the policies or the original justification, you are in contractual breach, and the RIR has the right not only to investigate it, but also to recover the addresses.This proposal is not changing that, just making it more obvious, crystal clear.Transparency is ensured because the policy manual is public, so I don’t understand your point here.This version of the proposal, even if it mentions leasing, is only to reinforce the point that according to existing policies, the justification of the need is attached to connectivity services. We don’t define leasing on purpose, we say any form of leasing, in the sense of usage different than the original justified need.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 9 ago 2023, a las 1:55, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:Hi,I'm opposing the proposed policy change,I have concerns about the potential implications of the proposed policy change, particularly in regards to granting APNIC the authority to investigate and make decisions regarding the daily usage of IP addresses. The proposed policy change introduces a mechanism for APNIC to actively investigate and make judgments on the daily usage of IP addresses, effectively centralizing decision-making power. This shift raises concerns about the potential for inconsistent enforcement, lack of transparency, and an undue burden on both resource holders and APNIC itself.Attempting to assess the multitude of use cases and intentions behind leased IP addresses is a daunting and potentially subjective task that could lead to inefficiencies and disputes.The document mentions that other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) do not authorize address leasing either. However, the absence of address leasing in their policies may not be indicative of a universal best practice. Each region has unique network requirements and circumstances that may warrant different approaches to resource management. Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, We should consider the specific needs of our region when crafting policies. There might be legitimate use cases where IP address leasing could serve as a valuable option. For instance, organizations with varying seasonal demands or temporary infrastructure needs could benefit from leasing IP addresses.Regards,Arash Naderpour_______________________________________________On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 03:00, Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
_______________________________________________Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
30 Aug
10:28 a.m.
Hi Jordi,
I didn't ask about the policies,
I meant if they have authority to investigate the "usage of IP addresses",
As an example, with RIPE NCC you get an /24 when you become a member (you still need to wait in their queue). But I never heard that they investigate the usage of the IP addresses that you receive as an allocation from them. (since 2012 they don't even ask about the "usage of the IP addresses")
Can you please provide more details on this.
Thanks,
Arash Naderpour
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 19:36, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Arash,_______________________________________________All the RIRs have similar provisions, policies are a must to continue receiving services as a member, and this include policies. In the case of APNIC, see https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/membership-agreement/3.2 Member’s obligations
… d. Comply with this agreement and all APNIC Documents.And of course, Policies are APNIC Documents.5.1 APNIC Documents
The Member agrees that:
- The APNIC Documents may be amended from time to time in accordance with the Document Review Policy;
- Any such amendments are binding upon the Member;
- APNIC Documents as they exist from time to time form an integral part of and apply fully to this agreement;
- If the membership is either terminated or not renewed, the Member shall continue to be bound by the provisions of this agreement and other APNIC Documents to the extent that the provisions relate to the use of resources or disputes arising from this
agreement or any other APNIC documents.Usage of address is part of the validity of the justification. See the policy manual. And of course, APNIC can ensure that the license keeps being valid, by means of any method they deem convenient.4.1. License Renewal
Licenses to account holders shall be renewable on the following conditions:
- The original basis of the delegation remains valid, and ...
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 30 ago 2023, a las 11:18, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:Hi Jordi,Can you please provide some more details on this:"APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any possible usage of the addresses against the policies"I'm interested to know exactly if and how they are authorised to investigate the "usage of the addresses".Thanks,Arash NaderpourOn Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 18:16, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Arash,_______________________________________________APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any possible usage of the addresses against the policies. If you justified a need and you now make a different usage, which is against the policies or the original justification, you are in contractual breach, and the RIR has the right not only to investigate it, but also to recover the addresses.This proposal is not changing that, just making it more obvious, crystal clear.Transparency is ensured because the policy manual is public, so I don’t understand your point here.This version of the proposal, even if it mentions leasing, is only to reinforce the point that according to existing policies, the justification of the need is attached to connectivity services. We don’t define leasing on purpose, we say any form of leasing, in the sense of usage different than the original justified need.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 9 ago 2023, a las 1:55, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:Hi,I'm opposing the proposed policy change,I have concerns about the potential implications of the proposed policy change, particularly in regards to granting APNIC the authority to investigate and make decisions regarding the daily usage of IP addresses. The proposed policy change introduces a mechanism for APNIC to actively investigate and make judgments on the daily usage of IP addresses, effectively centralizing decision-making power. This shift raises concerns about the potential for inconsistent enforcement, lack of transparency, and an undue burden on both resource holders and APNIC itself.Attempting to assess the multitude of use cases and intentions behind leased IP addresses is a daunting and potentially subjective task that could lead to inefficiencies and disputes.The document mentions that other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) do not authorize address leasing either. However, the absence of address leasing in their policies may not be indicative of a universal best practice. Each region has unique network requirements and circumstances that may warrant different approaches to resource management. Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, We should consider the specific needs of our region when crafting policies. There might be legitimate use cases where IP address leasing could serve as a valuable option. For instance, organizations with varying seasonal demands or temporary infrastructure needs could benefit from leasing IP addresses.Regards,Arash Naderpour_______________________________________________On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 03:00, Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
_______________________________________________Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
30 Aug
11:04 a.m.
Different RIRs have different rules (different policies).
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
However, RIPE can also investigate any case for not following policies, no difference.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 30 ago 2023, a las 12:28, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:Hi Jordi,I didn't ask about the policies,I meant if they have authority to investigate the "usage of IP addresses",As an example, with RIPE NCC you get an /24 when you become a member (you still need to wait in their queue). But I never heard that they investigate the usage of the IP addresses that you receive as an allocation from them. (since 2012 they don't even ask about the "usage of the IP addresses")Can you please provide more details on this.Thanks,Arash NaderpourOn Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 19:36, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Arash,_______________________________________________All the RIRs have similar provisions, policies are a must to continue receiving services as a member, and this include policies. In the case of APNIC, see https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/membership-agreement/3.2 Member’s obligations
… d. Comply with this agreement and all APNIC Documents.And of course, Policies are APNIC Documents.5.1 APNIC Documents
The Member agrees that:
- The APNIC Documents may be amended from time to time in accordance with the Document Review Policy;
- Any such amendments are binding upon the Member;
- APNIC Documents as they exist from time to time form an integral part of and apply fully to this agreement;
- If the membership is either terminated or not renewed, the Member shall continue to be bound by the provisions of this agreement and other APNIC Documents to the extent that the provisions relate to the use of resources or disputes arising from this
agreement or any other APNIC documents.Usage of address is part of the validity of the justification. See the policy manual. And of course, APNIC can ensure that the license keeps being valid, by means of any method they deem convenient.4.1. License Renewal
Licenses to account holders shall be renewable on the following conditions:
- The original basis of the delegation remains valid, and ...
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 30 ago 2023, a las 11:18, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:Hi Jordi,Can you please provide some more details on this:"APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any possible usage of the addresses against the policies"I'm interested to know exactly if and how they are authorised to investigate the "usage of the addresses".Thanks,Arash NaderpourOn Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 18:16, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Arash,_______________________________________________APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any possible usage of the addresses against the policies. If you justified a need and you now make a different usage, which is against the policies or the original justification, you are in contractual breach, and the RIR has the right not only to investigate it, but also to recover the addresses.This proposal is not changing that, just making it more obvious, crystal clear.Transparency is ensured because the policy manual is public, so I don’t understand your point here.This version of the proposal, even if it mentions leasing, is only to reinforce the point that according to existing policies, the justification of the need is attached to connectivity services. We don’t define leasing on purpose, we say any form of leasing, in the sense of usage different than the original justified need.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 9 ago 2023, a las 1:55, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:Hi,I'm opposing the proposed policy change,I have concerns about the potential implications of the proposed policy change, particularly in regards to granting APNIC the authority to investigate and make decisions regarding the daily usage of IP addresses. The proposed policy change introduces a mechanism for APNIC to actively investigate and make judgments on the daily usage of IP addresses, effectively centralizing decision-making power. This shift raises concerns about the potential for inconsistent enforcement, lack of transparency, and an undue burden on both resource holders and APNIC itself.Attempting to assess the multitude of use cases and intentions behind leased IP addresses is a daunting and potentially subjective task that could lead to inefficiencies and disputes.The document mentions that other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) do not authorize address leasing either. However, the absence of address leasing in their policies may not be indicative of a universal best practice. Each region has unique network requirements and circumstances that may warrant different approaches to resource management. Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, We should consider the specific needs of our region when crafting policies. There might be legitimate use cases where IP address leasing could serve as a valuable option. For instance, organizations with varying seasonal demands or temporary infrastructure needs could benefit from leasing IP addresses.Regards,Arash Naderpour_______________________________________________On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 03:00, Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
_______________________________________________Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
30 Aug
11:30 a.m.
That's correct, as I stated earlier each region has unique network requirements and circumstances that may warrant different approaches to resource management. Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, We should consider the specific needs of our region when crafting policies.
Does APNIC presently employ a mechanism to proactively investigate and render assessments regarding "the daily usage of IP addresses"?
I hope someone from APNIC can answer this question,
Regards,
Arash Naderpour
P.S with regards to the RIPE NCC, they don't have the authority to investigate "the usage of IP addresses" as far as I know, they are mostly like a bookkeeper.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 21:05, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Different RIRs have different rules (different policies)._______________________________________________However, RIPE can also investigate any case for not following policies, no difference.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 30 ago 2023, a las 12:28, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:Hi Jordi,I didn't ask about the policies,I meant if they have authority to investigate the "usage of IP addresses",As an example, with RIPE NCC you get an /24 when you become a member (you still need to wait in their queue). But I never heard that they investigate the usage of the IP addresses that you receive as an allocation from them. (since 2012 they don't even ask about the "usage of the IP addresses")Can you please provide more details on this.Thanks,Arash NaderpourOn Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 19:36, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Arash,_______________________________________________All the RIRs have similar provisions, policies are a must to continue receiving services as a member, and this include policies. In the case of APNIC, see https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/membership-agreement/3.2 Member’s obligations
… d. Comply with this agreement and all APNIC Documents.And of course, Policies are APNIC Documents.5.1 APNIC Documents
The Member agrees that:
- The APNIC Documents may be amended from time to time in accordance with the Document Review Policy;
- Any such amendments are binding upon the Member;
- APNIC Documents as they exist from time to time form an integral part of and apply fully to this agreement;
- If the membership is either terminated or not renewed, the Member shall continue to be bound by the provisions of this agreement and other APNIC Documents to the extent that the provisions relate to the use of resources or disputes arising from this
agreement or any other APNIC documents.Usage of address is part of the validity of the justification. See the policy manual. And of course, APNIC can ensure that the license keeps being valid, by means of any method they deem convenient.4.1. License Renewal
Licenses to account holders shall be renewable on the following conditions:
- The original basis of the delegation remains valid, and ...
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 30 ago 2023, a las 11:18, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:Hi Jordi,Can you please provide some more details on this:"APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any possible usage of the addresses against the policies"I'm interested to know exactly if and how they are authorised to investigate the "usage of the addresses".Thanks,Arash NaderpourOn Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 18:16, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Arash,_______________________________________________APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any possible usage of the addresses against the policies. If you justified a need and you now make a different usage, which is against the policies or the original justification, you are in contractual breach, and the RIR has the right not only to investigate it, but also to recover the addresses.This proposal is not changing that, just making it more obvious, crystal clear.Transparency is ensured because the policy manual is public, so I don’t understand your point here.This version of the proposal, even if it mentions leasing, is only to reinforce the point that according to existing policies, the justification of the need is attached to connectivity services. We don’t define leasing on purpose, we say any form of leasing, in the sense of usage different than the original justified need.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 9 ago 2023, a las 1:55, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:Hi,I'm opposing the proposed policy change,I have concerns about the potential implications of the proposed policy change, particularly in regards to granting APNIC the authority to investigate and make decisions regarding the daily usage of IP addresses. The proposed policy change introduces a mechanism for APNIC to actively investigate and make judgments on the daily usage of IP addresses, effectively centralizing decision-making power. This shift raises concerns about the potential for inconsistent enforcement, lack of transparency, and an undue burden on both resource holders and APNIC itself.Attempting to assess the multitude of use cases and intentions behind leased IP addresses is a daunting and potentially subjective task that could lead to inefficiencies and disputes.The document mentions that other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) do not authorize address leasing either. However, the absence of address leasing in their policies may not be indicative of a universal best practice. Each region has unique network requirements and circumstances that may warrant different approaches to resource management. Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, We should consider the specific needs of our region when crafting policies. There might be legitimate use cases where IP address leasing could serve as a valuable option. For instance, organizations with varying seasonal demands or temporary infrastructure needs could benefit from leasing IP addresses.Regards,Arash Naderpour_______________________________________________On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 03:00, Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
_______________________________________________Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
31 Aug
4:10 a.m.
Hi Arash,
As per policy, we review the usage of IPs when we have reasons to believe the existing license terms are no longer being complied with.
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#a_h_4_1_1
'individual licenses shall only be subject to review if the relevant IR has reason to believe that the existing license terms are no longer being complied with.'
Thanks
Vivek
From: Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 30 August 2023 at 9:31 pm
To: jordi.palet@consulintel.es <jordi.palet@consulintel.es>
Cc: sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
That's correct, as I stated earlier each region has unique network requirements and circumstances that may warrant different approaches to resource management. Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, We should consider the specific needs of our region when crafting policies.
Does APNIC presently employ a mechanism to proactively investigate and render assessments regarding "the daily usage of IP addresses"?
I hope someone from APNIC can answer this question,
Regards,
Arash Naderpour
P.S with regards to the RIPE NCC, they don't have the authority to investigate "the usage of IP addresses" as far as I know, they are mostly like a bookkeeper.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 21:05, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Different RIRs have different rules (different policies).
However, RIPE can also investigate any case for not following policies, no difference.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 30 ago 2023, a las 12:28, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:
Hi Jordi,
I didn't ask about the policies,
I meant if they have authority to investigate the "usage of IP addresses",
As an example, with RIPE NCC you get an /24 when you become a member (you still need to wait in their queue). But I never heard that they investigate the usage of the IP addresses that you receive as an allocation from them. (since 2012 they don't even ask about the "usage of the IP addresses")
Can you please provide more details on this.
Thanks,
Arash Naderpour
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 19:36, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Arash,
All the RIRs have similar provisions, policies are a must to continue receiving services as a member, and this include policies. In the case of APNIC, see https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/membership-agreement/
3.2 Member’s obligations
… d. Comply with this agreement and all APNIC Documents.
And of course, Policies are APNIC Documents.
5.1 APNIC Documents
The Member agrees that:
- The APNIC Documents may be amended from time to time in accordance with the Document Review Policy;
- Any such amendments are binding upon the Member;
- APNIC Documents as they exist from time to time form an integral part of and apply fully to this agreement;
- If the membership is either terminated or not renewed, the Member shall continue to be bound by the provisions of this agreement and other APNIC Documents to the extent that the provisions relate to the use of resources or disputes arising from this
agreement or any other APNIC documents.Usage of address is part of the validity of the justification. See the policy manual. And of course, APNIC can ensure that the license keeps being valid, by means of any method they deem convenient.
4.1. License Renewal
Licenses to account holders shall be renewable on the following conditions:
- The original basis of the delegation remains valid, and ...
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 30 ago 2023, a las 11:18, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:
Hi Jordi,
Can you please provide some more details on this:
"APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any possible usage of the addresses against the policies"
I'm interested to know exactly if and how they are authorised to investigate the "usage of the addresses".
Thanks,
Arash Naderpour
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 18:16, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Arash,
APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any possible usage of the addresses against the policies. If you justified a need and you now make a different usage, which is against the policies or the original justification, you are in contractual breach, and the RIR has the right not only to investigate it, but also to recover the addresses.
This proposal is not changing that, just making it more obvious, crystal clear.
Transparency is ensured because the policy manual is public, so I don’t understand your point here.
This version of the proposal, even if it mentions leasing, is only to reinforce the point that according to existing policies, the justification of the need is attached to connectivity services. We don’t define leasing on purpose, we say any form of leasing, in the sense of usage different than the original justified need.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 9 ago 2023, a las 1:55, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:
Hi,
I'm opposing the proposed policy change,
I have concerns about the potential implications of the proposed policy change, particularly in regards to granting APNIC the authority to investigate and make decisions regarding the daily usage of IP addresses. The proposed policy change introduces a mechanism for APNIC to actively investigate and make judgments on the daily usage of IP addresses, effectively centralizing decision-making power. This shift raises concerns about the potential for inconsistent enforcement, lack of transparency, and an undue burden on both resource holders and APNIC itself.
Attempting to assess the multitude of use cases and intentions behind leased IP addresses is a daunting and potentially subjective task that could lead to inefficiencies and disputes.
The document mentions that other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) do not authorize address leasing either. However, the absence of address leasing in their policies may not be indicative of a universal best practice. Each region has unique network requirements and circumstances that may warrant different approaches to resource management. Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, We should consider the specific needs of our region when crafting policies. There might be legitimate use cases where IP address leasing could serve as a valuable option. For instance, organizations with varying seasonal demands or temporary infrastructure needs could benefit from leasing IP addresses.
Regards,
Arash Naderpour
On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 03:00, Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--
Regards,
Shaila Sharmin
+8801811447396
_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net_______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it._______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it._______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it._______________________________________________
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
31 Aug
4:28 a.m.
>
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Wait, so NIRs can no longer hand out addresses unless they provide connectivity? I believe they assign/allocate IR without providing connectivity.
1 Sep
5:26 a.m.
On Thu, 31 Aug 2023, 07:29 Sanjeev Gupta, <sanjeev@dcs1.biz> wrote:
> If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.Wait, so NIRs can no longer hand out addresses unless they provide connectivity?
Connectivity means addresses being put to proper use...
I believe
So, you are not sure?
they assign/allocate IR without providing connectivity.
How and why would they do that?
Noah
1 Sep
6:55 p.m.
On Aug 31, 2023, at 22:26, Noah <noah@neo.co.tz> wrote:On Thu, 31 Aug 2023, 07:29 Sanjeev Gupta, <sanjeev@dcs1.biz> wrote:> If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.Wait, so NIRs can no longer hand out addresses unless they provide connectivity?Connectivity means addresses being put to proper use...
English meaning of the word. Can you please provide a written source for this definition?
Most importantly, could you provide a reference for the definition of “proper use”?
I believeSo, you are not sure?
they assign/allocate IR without providing connectivity.How and why would they do that?
which also assigns/allocates IR without providing connectivity.
Any assignment or allocation which is revocable, especially when provided for
a time period governed by the payment of a fee could be considered a lease.
Therefore, arguably, RIRs and NIRs lease addresses without connectivity (by any
standard English definition of the term connectivity).
It gets a lot muddier if we adopt your definition of the term connectivity, but if we
do that, then an entity leasing to an end user who actually uses the addresses
for legitimate purpose is also perfectly fine and this policy’s stated
intent would be turned completely on its head as the repeatedly stated intent
from the policy authors is to prohibit leasing not associated with connectivity
services.
Of course, one could argue that connectivity services can be achieved by
something as simple as a heavily prepended bop announcement in front
of a GRE tunnel, but that’s a whole other argument.
Owen
2 Sep
9:32 a.m.
If I understand correctly https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/operational-policies-nirs/, section 3.5, we can simplify the role of NIRs as “administrators”, they don’t “hold" anymore addresses, so they are just an intermediate step, but the real allocation is done by APNIC from the relevant pools.
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
In any case, as explained already, the proposal doesn’t directly relate to connectivity, but to what was the justified usage in the original allocation request.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 31 ago 2023, a las 6:28, Sanjeev Gupta <sanjeev@dcs1.biz> escribió:_______________________________________________> If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.Wait, so NIRs can no longer hand out addresses unless they provide connectivity? I believe they assign/allocate IR without providing connectivity.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
2 Sep
9:37 a.m.
As I’ve explained before, the license renewal and other sections of the membership agreement and policies, allows APNIC to investigate whatever they believe is needed, to verify the proper usage of the resources, if documents are correct, etc., etc.
Neve mind APNIC has such a mechanism in place, they have the right to set up the mechanism, or do an investigation, when they believe something is not right.
All the RIRs have similar regulations, one way or another, including RIPE. I recall several cases where RIPE reclaimed address space for several different reasons, and the same happens in all the RIRs.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 30 ago 2023, a las 13:30, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:That's correct, as I stated earlier each region has unique network requirements and circumstances that may warrant different approaches to resource management. Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, We should consider the specific needs of our region when crafting policies.Does APNIC presently employ a mechanism to proactively investigate and render assessments regarding "the daily usage of IP addresses"?I hope someone from APNIC can answer this question,Regards,Arash NaderpourP.S with regards to the RIPE NCC, they don't have the authority to investigate "the usage of IP addresses" as far as I know, they are mostly like a bookkeeper.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 21:05, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Different RIRs have different rules (different policies)._______________________________________________However, RIPE can also investigate any case for not following policies, no difference.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 30 ago 2023, a las 12:28, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:Hi Jordi,I didn't ask about the policies,I meant if they have authority to investigate the "usage of IP addresses",As an example, with RIPE NCC you get an /24 when you become a member (you still need to wait in their queue). But I never heard that they investigate the usage of the IP addresses that you receive as an allocation from them. (since 2012 they don't even ask about the "usage of the IP addresses")Can you please provide more details on this.Thanks,Arash NaderpourOn Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 19:36, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Arash,_______________________________________________All the RIRs have similar provisions, policies are a must to continue receiving services as a member, and this include policies. In the case of APNIC, see https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/membership-agreement/3.2 Member’s obligations
… d. Comply with this agreement and all APNIC Documents.And of course, Policies are APNIC Documents.5.1 APNIC Documents
The Member agrees that:
- The APNIC Documents may be amended from time to time in accordance with the Document Review Policy;
- Any such amendments are binding upon the Member;
- APNIC Documents as they exist from time to time form an integral part of and apply fully to this agreement;
- If the membership is either terminated or not renewed, the Member shall continue to be bound by the provisions of this agreement and other APNIC Documents to the extent that the provisions relate to the use of resources or disputes arising from this
agreement or any other APNIC documents.Usage of address is part of the validity of the justification. See the policy manual. And of course, APNIC can ensure that the license keeps being valid, by means of any method they deem convenient.4.1. License Renewal
Licenses to account holders shall be renewable on the following conditions:
- The original basis of the delegation remains valid, and ...
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 30 ago 2023, a las 11:18, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:Hi Jordi,Can you please provide some more details on this:"APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any possible usage of the addresses against the policies"I'm interested to know exactly if and how they are authorised to investigate the "usage of the addresses".Thanks,Arash NaderpourOn Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 18:16, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Arash,_______________________________________________APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any possible usage of the addresses against the policies. If you justified a need and you now make a different usage, which is against the policies or the original justification, you are in contractual breach, and the RIR has the right not only to investigate it, but also to recover the addresses.This proposal is not changing that, just making it more obvious, crystal clear.Transparency is ensured because the policy manual is public, so I don’t understand your point here.This version of the proposal, even if it mentions leasing, is only to reinforce the point that according to existing policies, the justification of the need is attached to connectivity services. We don’t define leasing on purpose, we say any form of leasing, in the sense of usage different than the original justified need.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 9 ago 2023, a las 1:55, Arash Naderpour <arash.naderpour@gmail.com> escribió:Hi,I'm opposing the proposed policy change,I have concerns about the potential implications of the proposed policy change, particularly in regards to granting APNIC the authority to investigate and make decisions regarding the daily usage of IP addresses. The proposed policy change introduces a mechanism for APNIC to actively investigate and make judgments on the daily usage of IP addresses, effectively centralizing decision-making power. This shift raises concerns about the potential for inconsistent enforcement, lack of transparency, and an undue burden on both resource holders and APNIC itself.Attempting to assess the multitude of use cases and intentions behind leased IP addresses is a daunting and potentially subjective task that could lead to inefficiencies and disputes.The document mentions that other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) do not authorize address leasing either. However, the absence of address leasing in their policies may not be indicative of a universal best practice. Each region has unique network requirements and circumstances that may warrant different approaches to resource management. Instead of adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, We should consider the specific needs of our region when crafting policies. There might be legitimate use cases where IP address leasing could serve as a valuable option. For instance, organizations with varying seasonal demands or temporary infrastructure needs could benefit from leasing IP addresses.Regards,Arash Naderpour_______________________________________________On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 03:00, Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
_______________________________________________Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Aurimas Lazdauskas
10 Aug
7:45 a.m.
Hi everyone,
I'm opposing the proposed policy change.
First, the proposed text for the policy lacks legal clarity and doesn’t meet the principles and requirements for legal text (legislation) due to its length, redundant language (like various explanations in the text, including what justification of the need implies, etc.) and ambiguous and non-mandatory language (like “APNIC should”).
Second, and most important, the proposed policy change will negatively impact IPv4 availability and accessibility.
Aurimas Lazdauskas
From: Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com>
Sent: 4 August, 2023 8:00 PM
To: sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
Subject: [sig-policy] New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
--
Regards,
Shaila Sharmin
+8801811447396
30 Aug
8:19 a.m.
Hi Aurimas,
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Policies are written in a different way than legal text and there is nothing in the PDP that say that it should be otherwise.
If you think something is redundant, we made it to increase the clarity, but of course, we could always improve, just make us some specific proposal so we can check it.
The proposal doesn’t change the current situation of IPv4 availability and accessibility. I you read all the text, it is making clear where in the existing policies, disallows leasing or practices against the original justification of the need.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 10 ago 2023, a las 9:45, Aurimas Lazdauskas via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> escribió:<Norte Holdings Limited - HMRC Clearance - ST v1(41674665.1) (AL).docx>_______________________________________________Hi everyone,
I'm opposing the proposed policy change.
First, the proposed text for the policy lacks legal clarity and doesn’t meet the principles and requirements for legal text (legislation) due to its length, redundant language (like various explanations in the text, including what justification of the need implies, etc.) and ambiguous and non-mandatory language (like “APNIC should”).
Second, and most important, the proposed policy change will negatively impact IPv4 availability and accessibility.
Aurimas Lazdauskas
From: Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com>
Sent: 4 August, 2023 8:00 PM
To: sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
Subject: [sig-policy] New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--
Regards,
Shaila Sharmin
+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
12 Aug
12:12 p.m.
Hello Team,
I am in support of the concept, however I believe some policy wording changes need to be made, in order to ensure that it does not impact members who have a legitimate business case for leasing IP addresses.
There are businesses who do lease IP resources as part of a service, for example, businesses may also lease subnets smaller than a /24 to customers who may have a business internet service. In circumstances where a resource user requires greater than a /25 (i.e. a /24 or larger) they either need to acquire resources directly from APNIC or through a market transfer. I don't believe it is the intention of this policy to restrict these types of services however under the current wording would technically be in breach of the policy.
The policy needs to be worded in a way, that prevents members from leasing IP resources themselves as the only service, without any other services (such as transit) from being supplied. This is generally what organisations may do when they hold resources they no longer require or obtain resources from the registry with the sole intention of leasing them, and provide false or misleading information to acquire them.
Should APNIC make a determination that a resource holder is leasing out resources in breach of this policy, then the resource holder needs to either transfer the resources directly to the lessee or return the resources back to APNIC for further delegations to other members/applicants.
Regards, Christopher H.
13 Aug
5:10 a.m.
There are many customers that have a /24 or more leased from their provider. Claiming that anyone needing a /24 or shorter prefix must go to an RIR or the market is current reality, but not historically true. Lots of older provider assignments of /24 and shorter prefixes exist in the wild and persist in use today.
Owen
On Aug 12, 2023, at 05:12, Christopher H chris@thesysadmin.dev wrote:
Hello Team,
I am in support of the concept, however I believe some policy wording changes need to be made, in order to ensure that it does not impact members who have a legitimate business case for leasing IP addresses.
There are businesses who do lease IP resources as part of a service, for example, businesses may also lease subnets smaller than a /24 to customers who may have a business internet service. In circumstances where a resource user requires greater than a /25 (i.e. a /24 or larger) they either need to acquire resources directly from APNIC or through a market transfer. I don't believe it is the intention of this policy to restrict these types of services however under the current wording would technically be in breach of the policy.
The policy needs to be worded in a way, that prevents members from leasing IP resources themselves as the only service, without any other services (such as transit) from being supplied. This is generally what organisations may do when they hold resources they no longer require or obtain resources from the registry with the sole intention of leasing them, and provide false or misleading information to acquire them.
Should APNIC make a determination that a resource holder is leasing out resources in breach of this policy, then the resource holder needs to either transfer the resources directly to the lessee or return the resources back to APNIC for further delegations to other members/applicants.
Regards, Christopher H. _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
30 Aug
8:22 a.m.
Hi Christopher,
Exactly, we don’t pretend to disallow leasing associated to connectivity services, and we do believe the text is clear on that, because we only mention leasing as an example of what is not allowed as a justification of the need and consequently if it was not part of the original request, can’t be done afterwards.
I don’t want to repeat myself … please read the previous messages I just responded to other folks.
Regards, Jordi
@jordipalet
El 12 ago 2023, a las 14:12, Christopher H chris@thesysadmin.dev escribió:
Hello Team,
I am in support of the concept, however I believe some policy wording changes need to be made, in order to ensure that it does not impact members who have a legitimate business case for leasing IP addresses.
There are businesses who do lease IP resources as part of a service, for example, businesses may also lease subnets smaller than a /24 to customers who may have a business internet service. In circumstances where a resource user requires greater than a /25 (i.e. a /24 or larger) they either need to acquire resources directly from APNIC or through a market transfer. I don't believe it is the intention of this policy to restrict these types of services however under the current wording would technically be in breach of the policy.
The policy needs to be worded in a way, that prevents members from leasing IP resources themselves as the only service, without any other services (such as transit) from being supplied. This is generally what organisations may do when they hold resources they no longer require or obtain resources from the registry with the sole intention of leasing them, and provide false or misleading information to acquire them.
Should APNIC make a determination that a resource holder is leasing out resources in breach of this policy, then the resource holder needs to either transfer the resources directly to the lessee or return the resources back to APNIC for further delegations to other members/applicants.
Regards, Christopher H. _______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
********************************************** IPv4 is over Are you ready for the new Internet ? http://www.theipv6company.com The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
19 Aug
4:27 p.m.
Hello,
I am in agreement with the underlying concept. However, the proposal needs to provide clarity on the entity responsible for conducting the investigation or determining its frequency, as well as outlining the enforcement mechanisms.
Recently, I came across a case involving "LolekHosted.net" on the official website of the US Department of Justice. This service provider was found to offer various illicit services, including "frequently altering the IP addresses of client servers" and "disregarding abuse complaints lodged by third parties against their clients." Such leasing practices might potentially be exploited for criminal activities.
While incorporating text to prohibit leasing behaviours is a relatively straightforward task, the actual implementation would require a dedicated effort. I've outlined several pertinent questions below:
I am in agreement with the underlying concept. However, the proposal needs to provide clarity on the entity responsible for conducting the investigation or determining its frequency, as well as outlining the enforcement mechanisms.
Recently, I came across a case involving "LolekHosted.net" on the official website of the US Department of Justice. This service provider was found to offer various illicit services, including "frequently altering the IP addresses of client servers" and "disregarding abuse complaints lodged by third parties against their clients." Such leasing practices might potentially be exploited for criminal activities.
While incorporating text to prohibit leasing behaviours is a relatively straightforward task, the actual implementation would require a dedicated effort. I've outlined several pertinent questions below:
- Should the investigation be carried out by RIRs, LIRs, or ISPs?
- How can this be effectively implemented? Are there any best practices?
- What should be the optimal frequency for conducting these investigations?
- Should the community consider formulating policies to assist law enforcement demands or jurisdictional requirements?
Note:
1. U.S. Authorities Announce Court-Authorized Seizure of LolekHosted.net, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/administrator-bulletproof-webhosting-domain-charged-connection-facilitation-netwalker
Yours sincerely,
YingChu Chen
YingChu Chen
On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 1:00 AM Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
_______________________________________________Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
30 Aug
8:27 a.m.
Hi Ying,
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
The proposals or policies don’t need to state how they are implemented. The is a problem specific of the secretariat. There are ways to automate, in a first step, if resources are announced by an AS which is not in the path of the original resource holder, for example. Of course, this is only a 1st signal, and may require human verification.
Same for how APNIC is doing the investigation, frequency, etc. Of course, it can be mostly automated. I don’t get your last point. The community is free to follow or not the rules of specific countries, we are independent from governments.
Policies are meant for the RIRs and the community being delegated by the RIR, so it imply a mandate for NIRs, LIRs, ISPs, associated members, direct APNIC assignments, etc.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 19 ago 2023, a las 18:27, Ying Chu Chen <jungheng@gmail.com> escribió:Hello,
I am in agreement with the underlying concept. However, the proposal needs to provide clarity on the entity responsible for conducting the investigation or determining its frequency, as well as outlining the enforcement mechanisms.
Recently, I came across a case involving "LolekHosted.net" on the official website of the US Department of Justice. This service provider was found to offer various illicit services, including "frequently altering the IP addresses of client servers" and "disregarding abuse complaints lodged by third parties against their clients." Such leasing practices might potentially be exploited for criminal activities.
While incorporating text to prohibit leasing behaviours is a relatively straightforward task, the actual implementation would require a dedicated effort. I've outlined several pertinent questions below:
- Should the investigation be carried out by RIRs, LIRs, or ISPs?
- How can this be effectively implemented? Are there any best practices?
- What should be the optimal frequency for conducting these investigations?
- Should the community consider formulating policies to assist law enforcement demands or jurisdictional requirements?
Note:1. U.S. Authorities Announce Court-Authorized Seizure of LolekHosted.net, https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/administrator-bulletproof-webhosting-domain-charged-connection-facilitation-netwalkerYours sincerely,
YingChu Chen_______________________________________________On Sat, Aug 5, 2023 at 1:00 AM Shaila Sharmin <shaila.sharmin.ovi@gmail.com> wrote:Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
_______________________________________________Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
21 Aug
11:29 p.m.
---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
Sunny
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
Sunny
On 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin
wrote:
Dear SIG members,--
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en
Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
22 Aug
2:19 p.m.
Hello,
The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.
Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.
RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.
If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.
Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?
The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”
Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?
Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?
Regards,
Mike Burns
From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
Sunny
On 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:
Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--
Regards,
Shaila Sharmin
+8801811447396
_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
30 Aug
8:32 a.m.
Hi Mike,
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.
Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
30 Aug
8:40 a.m.
Hi Jordi:
That must be a long time ago.
RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.
Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.
On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
--
Kind regards.
Lu
Kind regards.
Lu
2 Sep
9:39 a.m.
It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.
Jordi
@jordipalet
@jordipalet
El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
2 Sep
9:43 a.m.
Hi Jordi:
Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?
Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.
Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
2 Sep
9:54 a.m.
Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
2 Sep
9:59 a.m.
Hi Jordi:
Who define those legal rights?
Who said it is not a property?
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
2 Sep
10:04 a.m.
Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members:
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
4.0. Resource License
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be considered freehold property.
Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document.
Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be distributed according to demonstrated need.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Who define those legal rights?Who said it is not a property?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
2 Sep
10:09 a.m.
Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting.
And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer.
And it’s just a policy of a private limited company.
It does not constitute law.
And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to reflect the market reality.
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members:4.0. Resource License
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be considered freehold property.
Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document.
Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be distributed according to demonstrated need.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Who define those legal rights?Who said it is not a property?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
2 Sep
10:13 a.m.
ignorance does not constitute consensus.
And that is the fundamental problem of this list, a small group of people think they can represent all internet user on earth.
No, you can not, policy pass here does not reflect true community wish, policy pass here only reflect the consensus of people participating in the discussion, in which by my count, only 20 people?
People haven’t pay attention or don’t care, does not mean they agree what you.
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:09 Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:
Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting.And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer.And it’s just a policy of a private limited company.It does not constitute law.And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to reflect the market reality.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members:4.0. Resource License
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be considered freehold property.
Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document.
Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be distributed according to demonstrated need.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Who define those legal rights?Who said it is not a property?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
2 Sep
10:19 a.m.
Ignorance of the law doesn’t mean you’re bind to it. Same here.
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
The PDP is open to all, is not about 20 or 2.000.000 people. All Internet users on the earth can participate, is not an exclusive club.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:13, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:ignorance does not constitute consensus.And that is the fundamental problem of this list, a small group of people think they can represent all internet user on earth.No, you can not, policy pass here does not reflect true community wish, policy pass here only reflect the consensus of people participating in the discussion, in which by my count, only 20 people?People haven’t pay attention or don’t care, does not mean they agree what you.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:09 Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting.And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer.And it’s just a policy of a private limited company.It does not constitute law.And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to reflect the market reality.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members:4.0. Resource License
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be considered freehold property.
Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document.
Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be distributed according to demonstrated need.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Who define those legal rights?Who said it is not a property?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
2 Sep
10:24 a.m.
Law maker are elected representative of majority population.
Jordi, remind me who elected you?
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:20 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Ignorance of the law doesn’t mean you’re bind to it. Same here.The PDP is open to all, is not about 20 or 2.000.000 people. All Internet users on the earth can participate, is not an exclusive club.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:13, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:ignorance does not constitute consensus.And that is the fundamental problem of this list, a small group of people think they can represent all internet user on earth.No, you can not, policy pass here does not reflect true community wish, policy pass here only reflect the consensus of people participating in the discussion, in which by my count, only 20 people?People haven’t pay attention or don’t care, does not mean they agree what you.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:09 Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting.And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer.And it’s just a policy of a private limited company.It does not constitute law.And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to reflect the market reality.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members:4.0. Resource License
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be considered freehold property.
Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document.
Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be distributed according to demonstrated need.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Who define those legal rights?Who said it is not a property?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
2 Sep
10:30 a.m.
Nobody needs to be elected to participate in the PDP, nobody needs to be elected to contribute to improve things in any aspect of the community. It is just a matter of willingness to do the right thing, never mind you don’t have a personal or business interest on that.
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:24, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Law maker are elected representative of majority population.Jordi, remind me who elected you?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:20 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Ignorance of the law doesn’t mean you’re bind to it. Same here.The PDP is open to all, is not about 20 or 2.000.000 people. All Internet users on the earth can participate, is not an exclusive club.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:13, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:ignorance does not constitute consensus.And that is the fundamental problem of this list, a small group of people think they can represent all internet user on earth.No, you can not, policy pass here does not reflect true community wish, policy pass here only reflect the consensus of people participating in the discussion, in which by my count, only 20 people?People haven’t pay attention or don’t care, does not mean they agree what you.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:09 Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting.And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer.And it’s just a policy of a private limited company.It does not constitute law.And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to reflect the market reality.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members:4.0. Resource License
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be considered freehold property.
Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document.
Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be distributed according to demonstrated need.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Who define those legal rights?Who said it is not a property?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
2 Sep
10:36 a.m.
When PDP have such vast impact on the internet, such model will not work well, a good example here is you being a good person, but hugely disconnected from the real will of the community.
And I understand how things started, it make perfect sense 30 years ago while internet was made of few nerds.
It is not today.
Just like you can not leave your nation’s law making system to “whoever want to participate”, so does PDP.
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:31 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Nobody needs to be elected to participate in the PDP, nobody needs to be elected to contribute to improve things in any aspect of the community. It is just a matter of willingness to do the right thing, never mind you don’t have a personal or business interest on that.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:24, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Law maker are elected representative of majority population.Jordi, remind me who elected you?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:20 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Ignorance of the law doesn’t mean you’re bind to it. Same here.The PDP is open to all, is not about 20 or 2.000.000 people. All Internet users on the earth can participate, is not an exclusive club.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:13, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:ignorance does not constitute consensus.And that is the fundamental problem of this list, a small group of people think they can represent all internet user on earth.No, you can not, policy pass here does not reflect true community wish, policy pass here only reflect the consensus of people participating in the discussion, in which by my count, only 20 people?People haven’t pay attention or don’t care, does not mean they agree what you.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:09 Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting.And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer.And it’s just a policy of a private limited company.It does not constitute law.And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to reflect the market reality.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members:4.0. Resource License
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be considered freehold property.
Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document.
Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be distributed according to demonstrated need.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Who define those legal rights?Who said it is not a property?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
3 Sep
5:06 a.m.
On Sep 2, 2023, at 03:36, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:When PDP have such vast impact on the internet, such model will not work well, a good example here is you being a good person, but hugely disconnected from the real will of the community.And I understand how things started, it make perfect sense 30 years ago while internet was made of few nerds.It is not today.Just like you can not leave your nation’s law making system to “whoever want to participate”, so does PDP.
Owen
_______________________________________________On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:31 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Nobody needs to be elected to participate in the PDP, nobody needs to be elected to contribute to improve things in any aspect of the community. It is just a matter of willingness to do the right thing, never mind you don’t have a personal or business interest on that.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:24, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Law maker are elected representative of majority population.Jordi, remind me who elected you?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:20 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Ignorance of the law doesn’t mean you’re bind to it. Same here.The PDP is open to all, is not about 20 or 2.000.000 people. All Internet users on the earth can participate, is not an exclusive club.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:13, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:ignorance does not constitute consensus.And that is the fundamental problem of this list, a small group of people think they can represent all internet user on earth.No, you can not, policy pass here does not reflect true community wish, policy pass here only reflect the consensus of people participating in the discussion, in which by my count, only 20 people?People haven’t pay attention or don’t care, does not mean they agree what you.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:09 Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting.And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer.And it’s just a policy of a private limited company.It does not constitute law.And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to reflect the market reality.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members:4.0. Resource License
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be considered freehold property.
Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document.
Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be distributed according to demonstrated need.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Who define those legal rights?Who said it is not a property?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
2 Sep
10:38 a.m.
Laws aren’t ONLY made by means of elected representatives of majority of the population. Minorities together in parliaments also make laws.
But further than that, individuals, not elected, can make laws (by means of law changes). At least in my country, a certain number of signatures properly documented from (non-elected) citizens, can do that.
Also a single individual can fight in courts against laws. I’ve got success a couple of times in my country by means of Constitutional Courts cases against my government and specific laws, and my claim triggered law changes, good for all. This is what I mean when say that any individual can contribute to the good of the community, if you do the effort.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:24, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Law maker are elected representative of majority population.Jordi, remind me who elected you?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:20 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Ignorance of the law doesn’t mean you’re bind to it. Same here.The PDP is open to all, is not about 20 or 2.000.000 people. All Internet users on the earth can participate, is not an exclusive club.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:13, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:ignorance does not constitute consensus.And that is the fundamental problem of this list, a small group of people think they can represent all internet user on earth.No, you can not, policy pass here does not reflect true community wish, policy pass here only reflect the consensus of people participating in the discussion, in which by my count, only 20 people?People haven’t pay attention or don’t care, does not mean they agree what you.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:09 Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting.And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer.And it’s just a policy of a private limited company.It does not constitute law.And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to reflect the market reality.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members:4.0. Resource License
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be considered freehold property.
Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document.
Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be distributed according to demonstrated need.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Who define those legal rights?Who said it is not a property?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
2 Sep
11:06 a.m.
Hi Jordi:
Exactly.
You just made my point.
Because lack of participation and disconnect from the real community, policy made here are highly challengeable.
Not to mention the policy is just a private company policy, carry same legal weight as your company dress code.
If you as individuals in a democratic country can challenge the law, challenge a questionable company policy is very easy.
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
Laws aren’t ONLY made by means of elected representatives of majority of the population. Minorities together in parliaments also make laws.But further than that, individuals, not elected, can make laws (by means of law changes). At least in my country, a certain number of signatures properly documented from (non-elected) citizens, can do that.Also a single individual can fight in courts against laws. I’ve got success a couple of times in my country by means of Constitutional Courts cases against my government and specific laws, and my claim triggered law changes, good for all. This is what I mean when say that any individual can contribute to the good of the community, if you do the effort.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:24, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Law maker are elected representative of majority population.Jordi, remind me who elected you?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:20 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Ignorance of the law doesn’t mean you’re bind to it. Same here.The PDP is open to all, is not about 20 or 2.000.000 people. All Internet users on the earth can participate, is not an exclusive club.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:13, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:ignorance does not constitute consensus.And that is the fundamental problem of this list, a small group of people think they can represent all internet user on earth.No, you can not, policy pass here does not reflect true community wish, policy pass here only reflect the consensus of people participating in the discussion, in which by my count, only 20 people?People haven’t pay attention or don’t care, does not mean they agree what you.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:09 Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting.And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer.And it’s just a policy of a private limited company.It does not constitute law.And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to reflect the market reality.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members:4.0. Resource License
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be considered freehold property.
Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document.
Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be distributed according to demonstrated need.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Who define those legal rights?Who said it is not a property?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
3 Sep
5:07 a.m.
The vast majority of representatives in various countries are not actually elected by majorities… Usually they are elected by mere pluralities.
Owen
On Sep 2, 2023, at 03:38, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:_______________________________________________Laws aren’t ONLY made by means of elected representatives of majority of the population. Minorities together in parliaments also make laws.But further than that, individuals, not elected, can make laws (by means of law changes). At least in my country, a certain number of signatures properly documented from (non-elected) citizens, can do that.Also a single individual can fight in courts against laws. I’ve got success a couple of times in my country by means of Constitutional Courts cases against my government and specific laws, and my claim triggered law changes, good for all. This is what I mean when say that any individual can contribute to the good of the community, if you do the effort.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 2 sept 2023, a las 12:24, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Law maker are elected representative of majority population.Jordi, remind me who elected you?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:20 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Ignorance of the law doesn’t mean you’re bind to it. Same here.The PDP is open to all, is not about 20 or 2.000.000 people. All Internet users on the earth can participate, is not an exclusive club.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:13, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:ignorance does not constitute consensus.And that is the fundamental problem of this list, a small group of people think they can represent all internet user on earth.No, you can not, policy pass here does not reflect true community wish, policy pass here only reflect the consensus of people participating in the discussion, in which by my count, only 20 people?People haven’t pay attention or don’t care, does not mean they agree what you.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:09 Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> wrote:Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting.And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer.And it’s just a policy of a private limited company.It does not constitute law.And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to reflect the market reality.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members:4.0. Resource License
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be considered freehold property.
Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document.
Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be distributed according to demonstrated need.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Who define those legal rights?Who said it is not a property?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
2 Sep
10:17 a.m.
If you sign a contract, with certain conditions, you are bound to them, unless they are unlawful, and is not the case.
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
You’re free to propose a policy proposal to change it.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:09, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting.And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer.And it’s just a policy of a private limited company.It does not constitute law.And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to reflect the market reality.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members:4.0. Resource License
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be considered freehold property.
Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document.
Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be distributed according to demonstrated need.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Who define those legal rights?Who said it is not a property?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
2 Sep
10:23 a.m.
Hi
I do not have APNIC resources, so, no, I am not bound to the resource policy in this region.
But moving forward, either APNIC facing existence crisis or update it’s policy and process to reflect market reality.
And when it is monopoly and strand form contract, the legal validity on “you sign you bound to it” is very questionable.
It’s a highly challengeable contract in court.
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:18 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
If you sign a contract, with certain conditions, you are bound to them, unless they are unlawful, and is not the case.You’re free to propose a policy proposal to change it.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:09, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting.And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer.And it’s just a policy of a private limited company.It does not constitute law.And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to reflect the market reality.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members:4.0. Resource License
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be considered freehold property.
Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document.
Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be distributed according to demonstrated need.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Who define those legal rights?Who said it is not a property?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
2 Sep
10:28 a.m.
I don’t have personally, neither in my employer, resources in any RIR/NIR, however I participate in all the 5 RIRs PDP because improving things for the community is the right thing to do.
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
It’s very funny and easy to complain about any policy and not come to the PDP to propose changes. Is like “things are wrong, I don’t care, I will not invest my time and resources to improve them, someone else should do”.
Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet
Jordi
@jordipalet
El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:23, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:HiI do not have APNIC resources, so, no, I am not bound to the resource policy in this region.But moving forward, either APNIC facing existence crisis or update it’s policy and process to reflect market reality.And when it is monopoly and strand form contract, the legal validity on “you sign you bound to it” is very questionable.It’s a highly challengeable contract in court.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:18 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:If you sign a contract, with certain conditions, you are bound to them, unless they are unlawful, and is not the case.You’re free to propose a policy proposal to change it.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:09, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting.And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer.And it’s just a policy of a private limited company.It does not constitute law.And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to reflect the market reality.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members:4.0. Resource License
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be considered freehold property.
Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document.
Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be distributed according to demonstrated need.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Who define those legal rights?Who said it is not a property?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
2 Sep
10:33 a.m.
That you indeed have a good point.
And I applause for your active participation.
But you should do more research on the subject and listen to the real community, not just the ones going to the RIR meetings.
Just like law maker talk to their constituents while propose laws.
That, you are making better policy for betterment of internet not narrow group of people.
We have a flawed system with large amount of ignorance, one small step to fix it is people here start to understand what member truly need and want.
A more fundamental solution is of course needed in the long run.
On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:29 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:
I don’t have personally, neither in my employer, resources in any RIR/NIR, however I participate in all the 5 RIRs PDP because improving things for the community is the right thing to do.It’s very funny and easy to complain about any policy and not come to the PDP to propose changes. Is like “things are wrong, I don’t care, I will not invest my time and resources to improve them, someone else should do”.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:23, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:HiI do not have APNIC resources, so, no, I am not bound to the resource policy in this region.But moving forward, either APNIC facing existence crisis or update it’s policy and process to reflect market reality.And when it is monopoly and strand form contract, the legal validity on “you sign you bound to it” is very questionable.It’s a highly challengeable contract in court.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:18 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:If you sign a contract, with certain conditions, you are bound to them, unless they are unlawful, and is not the case.You’re free to propose a policy proposal to change it.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:09, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting.And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer.And it’s just a policy of a private limited company.It does not constitute law.And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to reflect the market reality.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members:4.0. Resource License
It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be considered freehold property.
Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document.
Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be distributed according to demonstrated need.
The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Who define those legal rights?Who said it is not a property?On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct.I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
3 Sep
4:25 a.m.
First of all, RIRs don’t convey usage rights. They convey unique registrations.
Now the vast majority of (virtually all) ISPs (fortunately) choose to cooperate with the existing registry system,
so that the unique registrations in that registry system are roughly equivalent to a right to use, but every RIR
makes it very clear that the registration is _NOT_ a right to route or a guarantee that anyone outside of the
RIR system will honor your use of addresses on their routers in any way, shape, or form.
Nor does the registration of a prefix in the RIR system convey any exclusive right to announce that prefix or
prevent anyone else from doing so. It is the cooperation of ISPs and others who actually run routers that provides
that capability to prefix registrants in the RIR system. They are each individually free to honor or not any
particular registration in that system as they see fit. There is nothing binding upon them to do otherwise.
So you are both sort of correct and both equally wrong.
IP addresses are integers. Claiming ownership of 5 makes about as much sense as claiming ownership of
a bank account number or a credit card number or virtually any other number. You can’t own an integer
because one of the definitions of ownership is the right to exclude others from using that thing.
However, you can own and you can resell the registration of a particular number (or set of numbers)
within the RIR system. We routinely get lazy in language and refer to this as selling (or transferring)
the numbers themselves, but in reality, what we are transferring is the registration of those numbers as
uniquely assigned to us within a particular registry (namely the RIR) system.
It’s also true that the registries themselves don’t want to get involved in the business side of those transfers.
If party A and party B appropriately approach the registry and the transfer of the addresses is done in
conformance to their policies, they will happily transfer the resources from A to B regardless of how much
money was exchanged between B and A or in which direction.
While I think Mr. Lu’s choice to compare it to prostitution was in poor taste, I doubt that it violated the CoC
and like it or not, the comparison he was drawing isn’t so far from the truth. While some RIR policies
prohibit certain forms of “reselling addresses”, the reality is that remains a very gray area of those
policies. To make matters worse, legitimate paid transfers and address resale really are much harder
to distinguish than one would first imagine. Especially if you’re attempting to make that distinction in
policy language.
Just as it can be hard (impossible) to distinguish money exchanged for time spent together vs.
money exchanged for performance of specific “tasks” during that time. The latter is illegal in
many jurisdictions while the former is not, but proving that the purpose of the exchange was
the latter and not the former can be complicated at best.
YMMV
The bottom line is that this is still a policy proposal which should not be adopted for the following
reasons:
1. It fails to define leasing in a manner which would not allow interpretations which are hostile
to common current practice that the authors have stated it is not their intent to prohibit.
2. It fails to achieve solve the problem outlined in the problem statement.
3. If interpreted literally, it would have very negative ramifications to most existing service
providers and their customers.
4. It’s a deep dive into the minutiae of a tiny fraction of IPv4 utilization all because it offends
someone’s moral sensibilities without regard for any practical or useful policy concern.
5. IPv4 should have died years ago and this form of rearranging the deck chairs simply doesn’t
help the community to move forward. Put the energy that has gone into advocating this
proposal into getting key content providers that are still IPv4-only moving forward and we
can stop worrying about the scarcity of IPv4.
Owen
On Sep 2, 2023, at 02:54, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess against code of conduct._______________________________________________I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of those words, from a legal perspective.Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring?Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill.Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned.On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s it.Regards,Jordi
@jordipalet_______________________________________________El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <h.lu@anytimechinese.com> escribió:Hi Jordi:That must be a long time ago.RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason.Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for resale.On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> wrote:Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net----
Kind regards.
Lu
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
30 Aug
11:46 a.m.
Hi Jordi,
Thanks for the reply.
I understand your point about original justification at ripe. But that has not been the policy for a decade now, so I do think your information is inaccurate.
More to the point, Ripe will, in fact, consider leased out addresses as a justified need whenever they do a needs test.
That cuts directly against the implication of your text.
What's more, Arin is perfectly fine with address holders leasing out their addresses. And Arin can not revoke address space for being leased out or for being unused.
What is the problem you are asking the Apnic community to solve with your proposal?
Is it the insecurity of address holders relinquishing "immediate direct control" by allowing another party to use the addresses?
That's all that I could get from the problem statement.
Regards,
Mike
---- On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 04:32:11 -0400 sig-policy@lists.apnic.net wrote ----
Hi Mike,_______________________________________________There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need.Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks!Regards,
Jordi
@jordipaletEl 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <mike@iptrading.com> escribió:_______________________________________________Hello,The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed out before in other fora to the authors.Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false.RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and in this case leasing them out is a justified use.If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly.Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the problem we are trying to solve?The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the registrant’s “immediate physical control.”Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the registrant has immediate physical control of.”?Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it safer for the community?Regards,
Mike BurnsFrom: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <sunny@apnic.net>
Sent: Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable---------------------------------------------------------------
Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004
----------------------------------------------------------------
APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the
APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of
addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.
Questions/Comments:
-------------------
- Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered
'leasing'?
- How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are
being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking?
- Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those
addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches
consensus)?
- How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously
received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities
(for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)?
Implementation:
---------------
This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal
reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months.
Regards,
SunnyOn 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote:Dear SIG members,
A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been sent to the Policy SIG for review.
Information about earlier versions is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148
You are encouraged to express your views on the proposal:
- Do you support or oppose the proposal?
- Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
- What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more effective?
Please find the text of the proposal below.
Regards,
Bertrand, Shaila, and Anupam
APNIC Policy SIG Chairs
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.palet@theipv6company.com)
Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudhury@ccaoi.in)
Fernando Frediani (fhfredani@gmail.com)
1. Problem statement
--------------------
RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources
according to need, in such way that a LIR/ISP has addresses to be able
to directly connect its customers based on justified need. Addresses are
not, therefore, a property with which to trade or do business.
When the justification of the need disappears or changes, for whatever
reasons, the expected thing would be to return said addresses to the
RIR, otherwise according to Section 4.1. (“The original basis of the
delegation remains valid”) and 4.1.2. (“Made for a specific purpose that
no longer exists, or based on information that is later found to be
false or incomplete”) of the policy manual, APNIC is not enforced to
renew the license. An alternative is to transfer these resources using
the appropriate transfer policy.
If the leasing of addresses is authorized, contrary to the original
spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the link
between connectivity and addresses disappears, which also poses security
problems, since, in the absence of connectivity, the resource holder who
has received the license to use the addresses does not have immediate
physical control to manage/filter them, which can cause damage to the
entire community.
Therefore, it should be made explicit in the Policies that the Internet
Resources should not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a
connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need
justification.
The existing policies of APNIC are not explicit about that, however
current policies do not regard the leasing of addresses as acceptable,
if they are not an integral part of a connectivity service.
Specifically, the justification of the need would not be valid for those
blocks of addresses whose purpose is not to directly connect customers
of an LIR/ISP, and consequently the renewal of the annual license for
the use of the addresses would not be valid either. Sections 3.2.6.
(Address ownership), 3.2.7. (Address stockpiling) and 3.2.8.
(Reservations not supported) of the policy manual, are keys on this
issue, but an explicit clarification is required.
2. Objective of policy change
-----------------------------
Despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire
Policy Manual text and is thus applied to justify the need for
resources, this proposal makes this aspect explicit by adding the
appropriate clarifying text.
3. 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 and LACNIC, the
staff has confirmed that address leasing is not considered as valid for
the justification. In ARIN it is not considered valid as justification
of need.
A similar proposal is under discussion in LACNIC and ARIN.
4. Proposed policy solution
---------------------------
5.8. Leasing of Internet Number Resources
In the case of Internet number resources delegated by APNIC or a NIR,
the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own
infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to
customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable,
nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original
request. Even for networks that are not connected to the Internet,
leasing of IP addresses is not permitted, because such sites can request
direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR and, in the case of
IPv4, use private addresses or arrange market transfers.
APNIC should proactively investigate those cases and also initiate the
investigation in case of reports by means of a form, email address or
other means developed by APNIC.
If any form of leasing, regardless of when the delegation has been
issued, is confirmed by an APNIC investigation, it will be considered a
policy violation and revocation may apply against any account holders
who are leasing or using them for any purposes not specified in the
initial request.
5. Advantages / Disadvantages
-----------------------------
Advantages:
Fulfilling the objective above indicated and making the policy clear.
Disadvantages:
None.
6. Impact on resource holders
-----------------------------
None.
7. References
-------------
https://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/
https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en--Regards,Shaila Sharmin+8801811447396_______________________________________________SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net
**********************************************
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
http://www.theipv6company.com
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-leave@lists.apnic.net