Hello everyone, In my opinion, even Trading of IPs (leave apart the lease for making dollars) in the name of transfers must be stopped. If organisation doesn’t need IPs , then those must be returned back so that smaller organisations can get it from the RIR.
Currently, only the one which have millions of dollars can think of getting IPs. In today’s scenario, no one can start the Data Centre, ISP business without investing millions in IPs. Even education and research org doesn’t have an option to get IPs from RIR. This is like horse trading and isn’t a good practice for the community as a whole. Regards, Gaurav Kansal > On 02-Sep-2022, at 12:20, [email protected] wrote: > > Dear Team, > > As Mr. Satoru, mentioned there are changes, but if carefully implemented in > phased manner, unauthorised leasing can be stopped. > > For example in first phase, leasing among countries can be stopped, if the > owner company doesn't provide any services beyond its home country. For > example if a company in India doesn't have any operation in Singapore or > Japan , can't lease resources to those companies in Singapore or Japan. This > can be verified by taking business registration documents of both lease and > lessor. > Once this is done same may be granularized at RIR level, where in country > like India, leasing can be restricted to the licensed service area for > service provider within their designated service area. > This may stop majority of issues, barring few exceptions. > Some more brainstorming is required for better understanding and precise > implementation. > > Regards, > > Rajesh Panwala > For Smartlink Solutions Pvt Ltd > +91-9227886001 > +91-9426110781 > > On Fri, Sep 2, 2022, 10:44 AM Tsurumaki, Satoru <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.. > > I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-148, > based on a meeting we organised on 29th Aug to discuss these proposals. > > Many participants support the intent of the proposal but felt that > implementation would be challenging. > > (comment details) > - It is undisputed that the current policy allows for the distribution > of IP addresses according to the actual demand of one's own > organization or directly connected customers, and does not allow for > the leasing of IP addresses. > - I think this proposal would be useful if the concept of leasing is > accurately defined. > - Leasing IP addresses that damage the accuracy of whois information > should not be allowed, but I find it difficult to implement. > > > Regards, > > Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team > > 2022年8月26日(金) 17:27 Shaila Sharmin <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>>: > > > > Dear SIG members, > > > > A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v002: 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 > > <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 Ching-Heng > > APNIC Policy SIG Chairs > > > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > prop-148-v002: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > > Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez ([email protected]) > > Amrita Choudhury ([email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>) > > Fernando Frediani ([email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]>) > > > > > > 1. Problem statement > > -------------------- > > RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources > > according to need, in such a 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 direct > > connectivity service. > > > > 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 an NIR, > > the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own > > infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided directly to > > customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable, > > nor does it justify the need, if it is not part of a set of services > > based, at the very least, on direct connectivity. 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 may 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://www.arin.net/participate/policy/proposals/2022/ARIN_prop_308_v2/> > > https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en > > <https://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en> > > _______________________________________________ > > sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > > <https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/> > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > <mailto:[email protected]> > > > > -- > -- > Satoru Tsurumaki > BBIX, Inc > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > <https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>_______________________________________________ > sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
