Hi On Fri, Aug 18, 2017 at 16:30 Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]> wrote:
> > Hi Aftab: >> >> I believe your understanding of spammer operation is not at all based on >> reality. >> > > Actually, you are right. I have no experience of running or facilitating > any spammer operations. > so on what basis you found your argument such policy will facilitating spammer operations vaild? > > >> >> Spammers merely need one to two-month space, and they disappear soon. >> Thus, there is no point for them to undergo this temporary transfer in >> order to sort out all the APNIC membership with a huge amount of paper work >> when they can simply pay (or hijack) for an announcement and have their >> spam job done. >> > > I'm not sure what sort of huge paper work is required? > Check APNIC member registration requirement. > >> Have you ever experienced during your operation history: a spammer come >> to you and say, 'hey we want to have a proper RIR registration in our name. >> For this we are so scared that you will take away space from us while we >> are spamming?' >> > >> Could you answer that directly? >> > > nah, I'll pass. > Anyone with real operational experience will have encountered spammer request, or a server being hacked by spammer or lease by spammer with fake account, it surprise me you wholely base your argument on potential increasing spam acitivity while have no real experience in anti spam operations. > > >> The policy which aims to bring more accurate whois database >> > > This advantage is not mentioned in the policy. > The results is obvious. > > >> for today's leasing market of space actually forces leaser to register >> their leaser's information in the whois database by offering protection of >> leasee and leaser's interest and by agreeing to set an amount time of >> ownership. One of the biggest risks faced by leasee is the probability of >> the leaser cancelling assignment or sub-allocation. This will lead to >> operation problem if they are not ready for network renumbering. In this >> sense, the protection can be an incentive for leasees to register their >> information properly. >> > > Your point is valid in terms of leasing but there is a fundamental problem > in my opinion. > > As per APNIC Internet Number Resource Policy > <https://www.apnic.net/community/policy/resources>: > > 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. > Organizations 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. > ====== > > And as per the Member's Obligation in membership agreement > <https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/membership-agreement/> > 3.2 > (d) The Member must comply with this agreement and all APNIC Documents. > > So IMO (though I'm not a lawyer but I watch Suits if that counts), if an > APNIC member is currently leasing IP addresses then they are in breach of > the membership agreement. > > Probably APNIC Secretariat can clarify that further. > Therefore(in the assumption your reading of the document is correct) the membership agreement need to be updated, our goal here is to maintain an accurate registry, and policy are what sets rules for using IPs, not contract, lawyers have no rights in the bottom up process to tell operators how to use their space. > >> On 18 August 2017 at 07:22, Aftab Siddiqui <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>>> It is already a possibility in the RIPE region to do such transfers. >>>> >>>> >>> And? >>> >>> >>>> It is really to cover a corner case where organisations are not able >>>> or interested in receiving the IP space in form of assignments or >>>> sub-allocations, but need them to be part of their own registry for >>>> full control of the space and only for a pre-set amount of time. >>>> >>> >>> Solution is simple, if the organization is not interested in receiving >>> the resources as assignments and sub-allocations then just buy it. >>> >>> What is full control? creation of route-objects? or anything which can't >>> be done by sending an email to [email protected]? >>> >>> >>>> I do not believe that spammer would benefit from this policy as they >>>> would have to register with APNIC as members and provide all the >>>> needed paperwork such as company registration papers, ID/passports, >>>> billing address etc... >>>> >>> >>> It will definitely support the spammers by all means. You temperorary >>> transfer resource to Spammer, they do their thing and get black listed >>> everywhere and then you get the resources back and ask everyone that we are >>> the new owner of this resource so kindly remove all the listing. REPEAT. >>> >>> >>>> They are much better off renting a /24 from the black market with no >>>> traces or documented changes ion the address block. >>>> >>> >>> Yup, let them pay black market rates for black market business model. >>> >>> And what will be the temporary transfer fees? same as permanent transfer >>> fees? or free? >>> >>> In order to resolve a corner case it will open up opertunities for >>> spammers. I stronly oppose it. >>> -- >>> Best Wishes, >>> >>> Aftab A. Siddiqui >>> >>> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy >>> * >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> -- >> Kind regards. >> Lu >> >> -- > Best Wishes, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > -- -- Kind regards. Lu
* sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list [email protected] https://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
