[sig-policy] Re: [SIG-cooperation] APNIC Nomination Review Committee - Proposal

[Amrita Choudhury]

Hi Aftab,

I think this is a timely discussion. Looking forward to this discussion.

Regards,

Amrita

On Thu, Aug 25, 2022 at 5:38 AM Aftab Siddiqui 
wrote:

> Hi Everyone,
>
> As you are aware the current nomination process for any community elected
> position is defined where APNIC secretariat sends the call for nomination
> on various forums and once they (secretariat) receives the nominations an
> internal due diligence process is performed and then the names of nominees
> are published with their details. The process ran so far on a need-to-know
> basis and the community had access to information that was deemed essential
> by the Secretariat. In order to build a strong and community driven
> structure it is important to have community oversight in the whole
> process, which at the moment doesn't exist. For that reason we are
> proposing a new committee called "Nomination Review Committee" and we
> believe that it will bring much needed improvements to the process of
> electing members to various community elected positions.
>
> Please review the proposal here
> <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing>
> and provide your feedback through the mailing list. We are also organising
> a BoF
> <https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom>
> on 14th Sep during APNIC54 to further discuss this in-person/online.
>
> BoF:
> https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/6/bof---apnic-nominating-committee-nomcom
>
> Link:
> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1w0uANFm5j1qCFCxQR_rXlwyGg_4NXme50J-HcZ0QeQM/edit?usp=sharing
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Aftab A. Siddiqui
> On behalf of SIG Chairs/Co-Chairs
> ___
> SIG-cooperation mailing list -- sig-cooperat...@apnic.net
> To unsubscribe send an email to sig-cooperation-le...@apnic.net
>
___
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/
To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net

[sig-policy] Re: prop-148-v001: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable

[Amrita]

Thank you Micheal for the support.

 

Regards,

 

Amrita

 

From: Michael B. Williams  
Sent: 24 August 2022 11:15
To: Amrita 
Cc: Fernando Frediani ; sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Re: prop-148-v001: Leasing of Resources is not 
Acceptable

 

I support this policy that the current practice of disallowing leasing be 
memorialised into a procedure. There seems to be tremendous uncertainty in 
APNIC around this (at least from the conversations I have been privy to).

 

Therefore, if it is indeed against APNIC policy to lease number of resources to 
other parties, I firmly believe this should be concretely enumerated and 
defined within the Organisation's policy.


 

Regards,

 

Michael

 

 

  _  

Michael B. Williams 
Glexia - An IT Company

Book a Meeting With Me <https://calendly.com/glexia-michael-williams> 

USA Direct: +1 978 477 6797
USA Toll Free: +1 800 675 0297 x101
AUS Direct: +61 3 8594 2265
AUS Toll Free: +61 1800 931 724 x101
Fax: +1.815-301-5570

michael.willi...@glexia.com <mailto:michael.willi...@glexia.com> 
michael.willi...@secure.glexia.com <mailto:michael.willi...@secure.glexia.com>  
(High-Security Correspondence)
https://www.glexia.com/

Legal Notice:

The information in this electronic mail message is the sender's confidential 
business and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the 
addressee(s). Access to this internet electronic mail message by anyone else is 
unauthorized. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, 
distribution or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it is 
prohibited and may be unlawful. 

 

 

 

On Wed, Aug 24, 2022 at 3:37 PM Amrita mailto:amritachoudhu...@gmail.com> > wrote:

Hi All,

 

Thank you for your valued inputs and interpretations.

 

APNIC staff has confirmed that leasing is not allowed and by proposing this 
policy change we want to explicitly state the same.  

 

As you can see that without this explicit statement community members are free 
to interpret or misinterpret as it suits them.

 

I would request all community members to look at this proposed policy change 
from the lens of bringing in a more accountable and transparent IP resource 
allocation process which can be easily understood by all.

 

Regards,

 

Amrita

 

From: Fernando Frediani mailto:fhfredi...@gmail.com> > 
Sent: 23 August 2022 17:22
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> 
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-148-v001: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable

 

Thanks for the clarification.
The makes it very clear that what we are doing is just willing to make 
something that *already exist* clear in the policy text, for the avoidance of 
doubt of all members and fair usage of allocated resources by APNIC to those 
who really justify the need.

Fernando

On 23/08/2022 07:35, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi wrote:

Hi Jordi,

Please see our comments inline...

On 23/08/2022 9:40 am, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

Hi Mike,

 

 

 

 

 

 

In at least, LACNIC and AFRINIC, it has been made clear by staff, that leasing 
is not a valid justification for getting resources, *THE SAME as in APNIC*, so 
if you use that as a justification, the request is denied. If you change the 
“usage” after the request is passed, then you’re bypassing the original 
justification, which is also *disallowed*.

 

I will let the secretariat to confirm if leasing is allowed or not, actually 
responding to your points on APNIC policies, even if this policy doesn't reach 
consensus. However, in my opinion the policy manual must be clear enough so 
nobody can interpret that something is not allowed when actually is not.


The same topic was discussed on the apnic-transfers mailing list sometime in 
June this year.
https://mailman.apnic.net/hyperkitty/list/apnic-transf...@apnic.net/thread/PDLAJK2JMT5RPILF4VZFH55PL4ROP5GG/

I'm copying and pasting my colleague Vivek's response here.


APNIC delegates IP addresses to Members based on their demonstrated need. What 
Members can do with that address space once it is no longer needed is impacted 
by policy requirements. I will provide two examples. 

Example 1: Addresses delegated from the last /8 pool cannot be transferred for 
a minimum of five years. During that time, if the reason for the original 
request is no longer valid, the resources must be returned to APNIC. 
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#8.0.-IPv4-Transfers 
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#4.0.-Resource-License 

So in this instance, if a Member leases out their IP addresses within five 
years of receiving the delegation from APNIC, they are clearly not needed for 
their original declared purpose and must be returned to APNIC. 

Example 2: For addresses delegated to a Member more than five years ago, if a 
Member no longer has the need for the address space, APNIC policy says the 
Member can 

[sig-policy] Re: prop-148-v001: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable

[Amrita]

Hi All,

 

Thank you for your valued inputs and interpretations.

 

APNIC staff has confirmed that leasing is not allowed and by proposing this 
policy change we want to explicitly state the same.  

 

As you can see that without this explicit statement community members are free 
to interpret or misinterpret as it suits them.

 

I would request all community members to look at this proposed policy change 
from the lens of bringing in a more accountable and transparent IP resource 
allocation process which can be easily understood by all.

 

Regards,

 

Amrita

 

From: Fernando Frediani  
Sent: 23 August 2022 17:22
To: sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-148-v001: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable

 

Thanks for the clarification.
The makes it very clear that what we are doing is just willing to make 
something that *already exist* clear in the policy text, for the avoidance of 
doubt of all members and fair usage of allocated resources by APNIC to those 
who really justify the need.

Fernando

On 23/08/2022 07:35, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi wrote:

Hi Jordi,

Please see our comments inline...

On 23/08/2022 9:40 am, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

Hi Mike,

 

 

 

 

 

 

In at least, LACNIC and AFRINIC, it has been made clear by staff, that leasing 
is not a valid justification for getting resources, *THE SAME as in APNIC*, so 
if you use that as a justification, the request is denied. If you change the 
“usage” after the request is passed, then you’re bypassing the original 
justification, which is also *disallowed*.

 

I will let the secretariat to confirm if leasing is allowed or not, actually 
responding to your points on APNIC policies, even if this policy doesn't reach 
consensus. However, in my opinion the policy manual must be clear enough so 
nobody can interpret that something is not allowed when actually is not.


The same topic was discussed on the apnic-transfers mailing list sometime in 
June this year.
https://mailman.apnic.net/hyperkitty/list/apnic-transf...@apnic.net/thread/PDLAJK2JMT5RPILF4VZFH55PL4ROP5GG/

I'm copying and pasting my colleague Vivek's response here.


APNIC delegates IP addresses to Members based on their demonstrated need. What 
Members can do with that address space once it is no longer needed is impacted 
by policy requirements. I will provide two examples. 

Example 1: Addresses delegated from the last /8 pool cannot be transferred for 
a minimum of five years. During that time, if the reason for the original 
request is no longer valid, the resources must be returned to APNIC. 
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#8.0.-IPv4-Transfers 
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources#4.0.-Resource-License 

So in this instance, if a Member leases out their IP addresses within five 
years of receiving the delegation from APNIC, they are clearly not needed for 
their original declared purpose and must be returned to APNIC. 

Example 2: For addresses delegated to a Member more than five years ago, if a 
Member no longer has the need for the address space, APNIC policy says the 
Member can choose to transfer it to another organization or return it to APNIC. 
APNIC policy does not have provisions for leasing. So in the second example, 
APNIC Members leasing addresses would be doing so outside the policy framework 
and will not receive APNIC services such as whois registration and RPKI/ROA 
access related to those addresses. This in turn may make it difficult to freely 
utilise those addresses on the Internet, due to lack of clear authorisation and 
a reliance on the registered holder (lessor) to assist. Of course, if the 
addresses being leased were not delegated by APNIC, then the relevant RIR’s 
policies apply to those addresses.


Regards,
Sunny
APNIC Secretariat





 

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

 

El 22/8/22, 12:17, "Mike Burns" mailto:m...@iptrading.com> 
> escribió:

 

There are a number of problems with this policy.

 

First let’s start with Jordi stating the policy is just a clarification of fact.

If so, why is it necessary? Actually it is not a fact as leasing is occurring 
in APNIC and there is nothing in policy preventing it.  So this needs to be 
considered as a change in policy.

 

Second, there are inaccuracies in the verbiage associated with the policy, 
particularly in reference to the status of leasing at other RIRs.  How can you 
make the statement “ In other RIRs, the leasing of addresses is not authorized 
either and since it is not explicit in their policy manuals…”?

 

Are you unilaterally deciding that things which are not mentioned in policy are 
by definition “unauthorized”? I think this is wrong, and it’s better to 
consider things as authorized unless they are forbidden by policy.  However, 
either way there is no language in any RIR regarding leasing and you can’t make 
assumptions based on your own feelings. 

 

You are also wrong in stating that 

[sig-policy] Re: prop-148-v001: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable

[Amrita]

Hi Sunny,

 

Responses in line.

 

From: Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi  
Sent: 23 August 2022 15:52
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ ; 
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Re: prop-148-v001: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable

 

Hi Jordi,

Please see our comments inline...

On 22/08/2022 11:20 pm, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:

Hi Sunny, all,

 

In my opinion because the policy is just a clarification of a fact, it doesn’t 
change the situation for non-LIR/ISP account holders. Further to that, direct 
assignments from APNIC can’t be further sub-assigned, so clearly this disallows 
any type of “business” with addresses for those account holders. Do you think 
that’s sufficiently clear or do you think a small text clarification in the 
proposal is needed?

We are seeking clarification because the current text is not clear enough.  

 

Amrita – we could add as Jordi mentioned small text clarification in the 
proposal.





Regarding your 2nd point, there is not already a generic contact email to let 
know APNIC if anything is wrong regarding policy compliance? It will be 
surprising that today anyone discovers some breach and can’t report it, so this 
will also apply the same to this proposal. Again, if you believe a text 
clarification is needed, we can make a new version for that.

We do have generic contact information on the APNIC website here
https://help.apnic.net/s/contactsupport

In the proposed policy solution of this proposal, it says "If any form of 
leasing is confirmed by an APNIC 
investigation...", but it does not state that these investigations should be 
conducted in accordance with the 
current procedure and refers to this in the policy document, nor does it state 
whether the Secretariat 
should proactively identify cases of leasing or only investigate cases that are 
reported or detected when 
processing resource requests. So, we are seeking clarification in order to have 
a clear understanding of this. 

 

Amrita : What we meant is that if any form of leasing is reported to APNIC, 
then APNIC should investigate as per the present process of investigation 
adopted by APNIC for any form of abuse/ concern reported. Do you want us to 
make it explicit in the proposal?

 

Finally, regarding your 3rd question, in my understanding the policy manual 
apply to *all the resources* unless we state otherwise. So not only those after 
being implemented are subjected to this proposal. And once more, the proposal 
is only a clarification, not changing what is the current reality. Anyway, we 
are happy to state it more clearly if needed.

As we all know, this is questionable.
In the past, authors either provided clear clarification in their proposal or 
clarified later after the impact assessment was provided. 
For example, prop-125, your own proposal, provided a clear clarity with details 
that were required for everyone's understanding. 

 

Amrita : We will make a change in the text stating that it will be applicable 
to all  existing allocation. Hope that helps. 



Regards,
Sunny
APNIC Secretariat




 

Tks!

 

Regards,

Jordi

@jordipalet

 

 

El 22/8/22, 2:45, "Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi" mailto:su...@apnic.net> > escribió:

 

Hi all, 

This is the secretariat's impact assessment for prop-148-v001, which is also 
available on the proposal page.

http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-148

APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the APNIC 
Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of IP addresses is 
not permitted in the APNIC region.

Clarifications:

Is this proposal restricted to LIRs/ISPs, or does it apply to all APNIC 
account holders?

The proposal does not specify how an APNIC investigation should be initiated. 
Should there be a form to report this, similar to IRT escalation?

Does this proposal apply to all existing allocations or only those delegated 
after the policy is implemented?

Implementation:

This proposal may require changes to the system.

If this proposal reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within 
3 months.

Regards,
Sunny
APNIC Secretariat




On 11/08/2022 5:01 pm, chku wrote:

Dear SIG members,
 
The proposal "prop-148: Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable" has been 
sent to the Policy SIG for review.
 
It will be presented at the Open Policy Meeting (OPM) at APNIC 54 on 
Thursday, 15 September 2022.
 
https://conference.apnic.net/54/program/schedule/#/day/8
 
We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing list 
before the OPM.
 
The comment period on the mailing list before the OPM is an important 
part of the Policy Development Process (PDP). We encourage you to 
express your views on the proposal:
 
  - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
  - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If so,
tell the community about your situation.
  - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
  - Is there anythi

Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update

[Amrita]

Hi 

 

Had a few comments based on today’s presentation, during the Policy SIG meeting.

 

>From what I understood making information about policy more easily and readily 
>available does not need a policy change . It  just needs to have existing 
>information more readily and easily available .

 

Secondly, as shared by many people who commented, the four week input period is 
normally sufficient for most PDPs, therefore it does not need any change . 
Policy timelines are not set for exceptional situations, but for general 
situations. If a policy discussion takes more that 4 weeks , as clarified, the 
chairs can already extend it. Therefore, no changes need to be paid in the 
policy discussion timeline.

 

However, perhaps the community may want to work on setting up  a mechanism  for 
reviewing  policies that have been implemented. 

 

Regards

 

Amrita 

 

From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Owen DeLong
Sent: Tuesday, September 10, 2019 4:57 AM
To: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
Cc: Policy SIG
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Version 4 of prop-126 PDP Update

 

I took the liberty of reformatting the message into a consistent font and size.

 





On Sep 9, 2019, at 02:41 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ  
wrote:

 

Hi Owen,

 

 

El 27/8/19 8:15, "Owen DeLong" < <mailto:o...@delong.com> o...@delong.com> 
escribió:

 

 






On Aug 26, 2019, at 03:05 , JORDI PALET MARTINEZ < 
<mailto:jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> jordi.pa...@consulintel.es> wrote:

 

Hi Javed,

 

I don’t agree, let me explain why.

 

The current process only talks about the meeting and the chairs have clearly 
indicated that they take in consideration the list and the confer. Anyone from 
the community that dislikes a consensus/non-consensus decision, could create a 
trouble even in courts, because we are accepting consensus from sources not 
documented in the PDP. Rewording it resolves the problem.

 

Furthermore, the current process has not an “in-process” appeal procces. This 
will be ilegal in may legislations (may be only the AU applies, but considering 
that the community is “the entire Internet”, may be this may be declared 
illegal in another country where a member decides to claim for). The only way 
(actually) to appeal, will be going to the courts. We should not aim to that. 
We should have an internal way.

 

While there is no appeal process, there are sufficient iterations of approval 
and ratification in the current process that I am not convinced an appeal 
process is necessary.

 

I don’t agree on that. If today chairs decide that something is out-of-scope, 
nobody has a way to change that decision. There is no way the community will be 
able to discuss the policy proposal as a “policy proposal”, because the chairs 
don’t accept it.

 

Is there any history of the chairs determining that something was out of scope 
erroneously? To the best of my knowledge, this is not the case in the APNIC 
region.

 



In the case of ARIN, there is a kind of appeal process with is the “petition 
process”. Here we don’t have that. And is the only region where we don’t have 
that.

 

Yes, and not once has that appeal process successfully changed an AC out of 
scope ruling. As you are aware, the board upheld the AC decision and you, 
yourself eventually realized that your original proposal as written was, in 
fact, out of scope.

 



I really think is very bad not having it.

 

I remain unconvinced of its necessity. The ARIN process is different… It has 
appeals built in at every step of the PDP. ARIN operates in the US which is an 
inherently litigious environment and the appeals serve (IMHO) as a safety valve 
to avoid litigation.





I’m convinced the chairs always act on their best good faith and willingness, 
but this scheme, without a way for the community to oversee the chair’s 
decision is “per se” against the bottom-up approach.

 

Again, I disagree. If you enough of the community feels that the chairs erred 
in determining a proposal out of scope, I have no doubt that the community is 
capable of communicating this to the chairs and asking them to reconsider their 
decision. Further, I think the chairs would do so in good faith under that 
circumstance.

 



Just imagine if we have a set of chairs that aren’t really acting in good 
faith, but on personal interest (please understand is just an example, not 
saying at all it is the present case). I don’t think we even have a way to 
remove them.

 

I think this is unlikely in the APNIC region, and, if it were to happen, 
proposals being declared out of scope becomes the least or our concerns, 
frankly.

 

IIRC, there is a process for replacing the co-chairs which seems to me to be 
the better solution to this particular problem. If there is not and you wish to 
propose such a process, I might be more inclined to support something like that.





 

Calling out the (remote) poss

Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

[Amrita]

Apologies for the delay in responding, I agree to Paul’s version as it is 
succinct and addresses the concern for which the SIG Charter.

 

Regards

 

From: sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net 
[mailto:sig-policy-boun...@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Paul Wilson
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2019 9:21 AM
To: Sumon Ahmed Sabir
Cc: mailman_SIG-policy
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Amendment of SIG Charter

 

Dear Sumon and all,

To reduce confusion over ISP/LIR/etc terminology, perhaps the charter could be 
stated more simply, along these lines:

“The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to the management 
and use of Internet address resources within the Asia Pacific region. …”

 

My 2c, with best regards,

 


Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC d...@apnic.net
  http://www.apnic.net @apnicdg

On 9 May 2019, at 19:53, Sumon Ahmed Sabir wrote:

 

Thank you very much Aftab and Owen for your constructive feedback. We will 
definitely consider those views.

 

If any one has any different perspective please jump in and share your thoughts.

 

Sincerely,

 

Sumon

 

  

 

On Mon, May 6, 2019 at 10:52 AM Owen DeLong  wrote:

Aftab, I think you misread the proposed language. 

 

First, neither the current version nor the proposed version refer to members at 
all, but to the actions of the APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs. The one change I think 
should be made there is to replace ISPs with LIRs since not all LIRs are 
technically ISPs, though that is certainly the most common case.

 

As to your “not limited to” or “services related to resources”, I fail to see 
how that is not addressed by the proposed “…and related services”.

 

I support the language proposed by Sumon whether or not he chooses to take my 
NIR suggestion.

 

Owen

 





On May 5, 2019, at 03:21 , Aftab Siddiqui  wrote:

 

Thanks Sumon bhai for the initiative, 

 



Revised text suggest that all members/resource holders in APNIC are ISPs only, 
I would suggest to make it "APNIC and NIR members or resource holders in Asia 
Pacific region". Because not all members are resource holders.

 

Secondly, when you start mentioning topics in the charter then it may create 
confusion moving forward that only these topics can be covered so how about 
adding "not limited to" or "services related to resources" or something like 
that. 



 

 

Regards,

Aftab A. Siddiqui

 

 

On Sun, May 5, 2019 at 4:31 PM Sumon Ahmed Sabir  wrote:

Dear Members,





In the last APNIC meeting in Daejoan there was a discussion that there is a 
perception 

That Policy SIG discusses only about “Address Policy”. On the other hand there 
is a understanding 

that Policy SIG covers a wider range of registry issues, RPKI or any other 
topics that requires a

procedures and rules. 





To avoid confusion and to bring clarity in the Policy Charter few proposals 
came in. That either we can change the Name of the Policy SIG to cover wider 
range or to amend the Policy-SIG Charter to bring clarity about the scope of 
Policy SIG.





After discussions chairs feels that we can make some changes in the SIG Charter 
to bring clarity:









Current SIG Charter   
https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/policy-sig/ says:









‘The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies and procedures which relate to 
the management and 

use of Internet address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia 
Pacific region.”





And here is the possible changes proposed:





 “The Policy SIG charter is to develop policies which relate to the management 
and use of Internet  address resources by APNIC, NIRs, and ISPs within the Asia 
Pacific region.  These include policies for resource allocation, recovery and 
transfer, and for resource registration within whois, reverse DNS, RPKI and 
related services.”





Please share your views, comments or suggestions in this regard.









Sincerely,





Sumon, Bertrand and Ching-Heng

Chairs, Policy-SIG

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

 

* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
  
https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

*  sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy   *
___
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@li