Hey Jordi, On Wed, 7 Sept 2022 at 23:45, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < [email protected]> wrote:
> Looking into English dictionaries and trying to make something specific to > our case. Maybe: > > > > Providing Internet Number Resources for a price (paid in any form) or even > for free, when not tied to a direct connectivity service. > > > So do you want to reclaim the following resources from their respective custodians as it is announced by an unrelated entity? 103.93.157.0/24* and 103.114.130.0/24* apnic|AU|ipv4|103.93.156.0|512|20170523|allocated|A91A0031 apnic|AU|ipv4|103.114.130.0|512|20180427|assigned|A91A0031 apnic|AU|asn|149847|1|20220526|allocated|A91A0031 apnic|AU|asn|136594|1|20170523|allocated|A91A0031 N*> 103.93.157.0/24 169.254.169.254 50 0 64515 65534 20473 *32787* i N*> 103.114.130.0/24 169.254.169.254 50 0 64515 65534 20473 *32787* i 103.81.228.0/24 * apnic|SG|ipv4|103.81.228.0|256|20161219|assigned|A91E3136 N*> 103.81.228.0/24 169.254.169.254 50 0 64515 65534 20473 *13335* i 1.1.1.0/24 and 1.0.0.0/24 * apnic|AU|ipv4|1.1.1.0|256|20110811|assigned|A91872ED apnic|AU|ipv4|1.0.0.0|256|20110811|assigned|A91872ED apnic|AU|asn|9838|1|20100203|allocated|A91872ED apnic|AU|asn|24021|1|20080326|allocated|A91872ED apnic|JP|asn|38610|1|20070716|allocated|A91872ED apnic|AU|asn|131072|1|20070117|allocated|A91872ED apnic|AU|asn|131074|1|20070115|allocated|A91872ED V* 1.1.1.0/24 103.126.52.155 0 141384 4826 *13335* i *APNIC delegate file <http://ftp.apnic.net/apnic/stats/apnic/delegated-apnic-extended-latest> > Regards, > > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > > > > > > El 7/9/22, 15:35, "Mike Burns" <[email protected]> escribió: > > > > Hello, > > > > If we don't have a definition of Leasing we can't fully consider the > issues of enforcement, among other items. > > > > As with many things the devil is in the details. > > > > Regards, > > > > Mike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Sent from my T-Mobile 4G LTE Device > > > > > > -------- Original message -------- > > From: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy <[email protected]> > > Date: 9/7/22 8:54 AM (GMT-05:00) > > To: sig-policy <[email protected]> > > Subject: [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - Leasing > of Resources is not Acceptable > > > > Hi Brett, > > > > I’m not saying that I reject a definition, what I’m saying is that I don’t > think is needed, despite that I’m happy to include it if we agree on that, > as can’t be other way, as this is the way we write proposals: understanding > what the community want (not just the authors). > > > > I’ve not been able to see the video of the discussion. Is it available? > Maybe the staff can provide it, so I can better understand all the points? > > > > Could you suggest a wording of leasing according to you view, to see if we > can make it happen? > > > > > > Regards, > > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > > > > > > El 7/9/22, 14:41, "Brett O'Hara" <[email protected]> escribió: > > > > Hi Jordi, > > > > You have stated that you do need a definition because "any form of leasing > is unacceptable", and yet I was verbally assured at the APNIC 54 Policy > Proposals > Webinar on the 25th of August, that several examples of leasing were > acceptable, but not documented in the proposal. My request for a > definition in the proposal was positively received by the SIG and we left > the issue to the authors. If the response from the authors is that the > definition is not necessary, I can't see how we can endorse the proposal. > > > > Regards, > > Brett > > > > On Wed, Sep 7, 2022 at 8:30 PM JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi Satoru, all, > > We haven't defined leasing, because it is common English term, not > something specific to "addresses". I can understand that in other > languages, it may not be the same, but because the policies are bound to > the English language, we didn't feel the need to define it. > > In fact, we had a similar discussion about that in LACNIC 6 months ago, > and we decided to make a new version, which is the same as we published in > APNIC. The point was to stress that "any form of leasing" is unacceptable. > If you read that in the context of the policy, it starts, as you already > mention "own infrastructure or directly connected customers". So, anything > beyond that will be a form of leasing (never mind if you pay a fee for the > addresses or they are free of charge, or you pay before you use them or > afterwards, etc., basically "anything not linked to connectivity"). > > I don't think the implementation is a problem. We know that many proposals > come with some challenges, however, the community, anyone, can and should > help on that. Anyone knowing or getting a leasing offer should communicate > about that. And by the way, I think will not be so dificult to create an > automated way of detecting it, just by ensuring that the users of any APNIC > block is directly connected to the AS of the resource holder. > > Regards, > Jordi > @jordipalet > > > > El 2/9/22, 7:15, "Tsurumaki, Satoru" <[email protected]> escribió: > > 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 - [email protected] <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a > href=>/">https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ > > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > > > > -- > -- > Satoru Tsurumaki > BBIX, Inc > _______________________________________________ > sig-policy - [email protected] <https://mailman.apnic.net/<a > href=>/">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. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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. > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
