If all type of leasings are against the actual policy, It make sense to change the actual policy to allow it.
I dont see any point to move forward with this proposal if the actual policy needs to be changed. Regards, Arash On Thu, 8 Sep 2022, 00:31 JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy, < [email protected]> wrote: > No, I’m not thinking that anyone should increase the price. I consider > that the right thing to do is that if anyone that has unused recourses, > should be honest enough with the community to return them to the RIR, > unfortunately the world is not so nice. > > > > Smaller ISPs are the ones that have an easier and cheaper transition to > IPv6 is they start doing so now, as latest, more expensive. We have seen > this already since long time ago. It is their decision. Not doing the > transition is already meaning they are risking their own business. > > > > Leasing is against the actual policy. We don’t change that. If you really > think it should be changed, the way is not working against this proposal, > but making one that change the actual status quo. > > > > Regards, > > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > > > > > > El 7/9/22, 16:15, "Mike Burns" <[email protected]> escribió: > > > > Hi Jordi, > > > > It’s plain you feel that we should do all possible to raise the price of > IPv4 and make it unattainable for small business in the vain hope that this > will drive IPv6 adoption. > > > > I don’t think making IPv4 more difficult to acquire is the job of the RIR > system. > > > > You have not addressed the inability of smaller companies to acquire > necessary IPv4 blocks if you ban leasing. > > Is that something you are comfortable with, in pursuit of the IPv6 grail? > > It’s okay with you that this policy prevents small companies from growing? > > > > Regards, > Mike > > > > > > *From:* JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <[email protected]> > *Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 10:11 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - > Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable > > > > Actually, I must disagree … > > > > If organizations having unused resources, they need to transfer them or > return them to the RIR. If prices keep going high, that could encourage > faster IPv6 adoption, then transfer prices will go down, up to “no value”. > It takes time, but it is just market. > > > > Those that have more money, have more facilities to do a faster transition > and not bother about IPv4. > > > > Regards, > > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > > > > > > El 7/9/22, 16:05, "Mike Burns" <[email protected]> escribió: > > > > Hello, > > > > Per Gaurav’s statement that “only those with millions of dollars can think > of getting ips”, this community should oppose this policy. > > > > Because the only way small companies can afford to get ips today is by > leasing them. The same way the small company can’t afford to purchase a > big office building but instead rents an office. Leasing is the only way to > finance IPv4 acquisitions today. No bank or other entity that I am aware of > will do it. Purchasing addresses requires full upfront payment, but leasing > allow for much smaller monthly payments. > > > > If this community wants to ensure only the largest and richest companies > can acquire new addresses, ban leasing. > > > > But if the community tries to ban something with such a large business > motivation behind it, it will find itself struggling against a powerful foe. > > > > And for what purpose do we punish the small businesses? Leasing puts > addresses in the hands of those who need them to build and operate > networks. Isn’t that the primary goal of the RIR system? > > > > Regards, > > Mike > > > > > > El 2/9/22, 9:23, "Gaurav Kansal" <[email protected]> escribió: > > > > 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]> 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]>: > > > > 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 > > > > 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]) > > Fernando Frediani ([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://politicas.lacnic.net/politicas/detail/id/LAC-2022-2/language/en > > _______________________________________________ > > sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > > -- > -- > Satoru Tsurumaki > BBIX, Inc > _______________________________________________ > 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] > > > > > > <https://amritmahotsav.nic.in/> > > > > _______________________________________________ sig-policy - > https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send > an email to [email protected] > > > ********************************************** > 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. > > > ********************************************** > 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. > > ********************************************** > 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/[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]
