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]
_______________________________________________
sig-policy -https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email [email protected]
