Hi Lu, I'm aware of what has happened with AfriNIC.
But APNIC is not the same as AfriNIC; and their policies, processes and legal frameworks are, I would say, substantially more robust, as are their contracts. As you mentioned, you are not an APNIC member and I think your statements show some lack of understanding about this region's legal position. I'll leave this here for now. Andrew On Fri, 9 Sept 2022 at 15:57, Lu Heng <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andrew: > > Yes, it comes down to contractual relationships between RIRs and its > members. > > I probably know a little more about this relation in legal detail that I > prefer not to discuss in the public, after all, I am the guy who gets the > entire NRO nervous about their legal standing. > > And I am probably the very reason Jordi proposed this policy, even though > I have no resources in APNIC region, passing of this policy is simply going > to put many of my competitors in war with APNIC, in which future decreasing > the already quite unstable system of RIRs. > > There are few problem to this I can discuss publicly > > 1.RIR are monopolies, or at least cartels,as it is currently stand, they > have power to disconnect nations, and members have no choice but sign > contracts with them to start their ISP business.(This alone put RIR in a > very difficult position to defend its contract clause if dispute happens, > because its non-negotiable nature and monopoly nature, just like most judge > will most likely sympathy with end users if an contract dispute with > Microsoft happen on end user agreement). > > 2. The contract value of RIR's membership agreement is far less than the > actual value of IPv4 address. > > 3. The setup of RIR as current stands they have no power legal power than > your flower shop next door. > > So let's say you are the only water company in town, can you make a policy > saying that "if you lease your water to your neighbour we will not supply > water to you so you will die?" > > It's anti-competitive and many other crimes, as a water company, you > simply can not do that, the power in any commercial contract relation is > very limited, any claim outside of law or being perceived to cause > injustice to the other party will simply not work, even though they forced > to sign it due to RIR's monopoly nature. > > > > > > > > On Fri, 9 Sept 2022 at 13:39, Andrew Yager <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Lu, >> >> With respect, when you become an APNIC member you agree to the terms and >> conditions set out in the member agreement. When you obtain resources you >> also enter a legally binding contract regarding those. >> >> APNIC has a legally binding contract with its members, which includes a >> number of statements which can be enforced. It is governed by the laws of >> Australia, which is also accepted by members when they join. >> >> This is a digression from the point of this proposal; but your assertion >> that the agreements and processes and policies have no legal standing are >> grossly incorrect. >> >> APNIC is absolutely entitled to enforce its contract with its members, >> which they signed when they became members. >> >> Best regards, >> Andrew >> >> >> On Fri, 9 Sept 2022 at 15:34, Lu Heng <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> Hi Jordi: >>> >>> No, it's you who confuse the few people in this room with the real >>> community. Bragging how many policies you have proposed without real >>> community just future shows your ignorance and arrogance. >>> >>> Community by definition, is every internet user, my grandma >>> included(Rob's original words while I ask him this question). >>> >>> So how about getting 1% of the community to support you by signing a >>> petition? It's about 3-4 billion community members in Asia, so 30 million >>> signatures would do. >>> >>> I have reduced that difficulty by assuming all APNIC members >>> can represent their end user(which is probably not true), so reduce your >>> workload from 30 million signatures to about 5000 companies. >>> >>> Can you do it? Do you have any idea what those 3billion community >>> members want, how many of them you have talked to? >>> >>> You have never reached the real community and you are trying to use a >>> private company's company policy to enforce regulatory power. >>> >>> You believe APNIC has the power to disconnect an entire nation if that >>> telecom does not obey APNIC "policy" made in this room. >>> >>> You did not realise the policy here does not have any more legal value >>> than dress code in any company. >>> >>> As it is currently set up, APNIC as a small private company, the policy >>> can only be "*a set of operation principles to best operate in a global >>> coodicated registration database, nothing more, nothing less."*, It can >>> not carry any regulatory power. >>> >>> And your policy involves telling people how to run their business, as a >>> single person that has no rights represents any of the 3-4 billion people >>> here, you have no rights to impose legislation in all those countries in >>> the region. APNIC has no rights in impose regulatory power of any kind to >>> its service countries, >>> >>> Secretariat, correct me if you think you have regulatory power. >>> >>> Unless and until APNIC is represented by people elected >>> government officials, and becomes an intergovernmental body, such a policy, >>> and many other your policy goes along the same line of "if you don't obey >>> we will put you out of business" will simply put APNIC out of business. >>> >>> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 19:04, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ via sig-policy < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Lu, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I think your confuse members with community. 100% of members could say >>>> no to a policy proposal and they not provide valid objections and the >>>> proposal reach consensus. Membership is a very small subset of the >>>> community and the policy process is driven by rough consensus, not a voting >>>> or anything similar. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Consequently, is also wrong that policies need to be made by real >>>> members of APNIC. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I don’t understand your point about my proposals and 10% of support. I >>>> will say otherwise. In 20 years or so, I participated in over 100 hundred >>>> policy proposals (approximately, didn’t counted them exactly) among all the >>>> 5 RIRs, and around 95% (or so) of them succeeded. I guess it shows >>>> something. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> APNIC and all the RIRs are not just a bookkeeper, they are the >>>> guardians of the Internet Number Resources following the community mandates >>>> (policies), NOT the members mandate. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Jordi >>>> >>>> @jordipalet >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> El 8/9/22, 8:48, "Lu Heng" <[email protected]> escribió: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Let me ask Secretariat a simple question: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> There is currently one of largest APNIC members who are leasing IP >>>> addresses to millions of end users(I won't name who that is but people in >>>> business should know), if this policy is adopted, how will the secretariat >>>> plan to enforce it without being sued out of existence? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The problem of this policy development process is, the real community >>>> is not involved. The real community is the near 10000 members and billions >>>> of end users those members represent. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Yes, it could be argued it is their fault not to join this policy >>>> process, but in reality, most don't care. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So this small room of people, who have never actually had any real >>>> memberbase support, believe they can make policy and use APNIC's >>>> monopoly position to do things, is simply disconnecting itself from >>>> reality. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Before Jordi and Fernado claim "community wants people to return >>>> space", how about getting 50% members' signatures to prove that point? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And the transfer data simply proves no one wants to return the space, >>>> and the real community wants a market. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I believe in order for RIR to survive, the small room of policy >>>> specialists that claim to represent the entire earth's >>>> interest(especially Jordi who makes policy proposals everywhere but failed >>>> to even have 10% of members supporting him), has to stop. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Policy needs to be made by the real members of APNIC, and real end >>>> users who are using the internet and someone can get a large percentage of >>>> the population to agree to them. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Otherwise, let APNIC stick to the bookkeeper, that is what is all >>>> created for. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On Thu, 8 Sept 2022 at 11:14, Andrew Yager <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> >>>> Fernando - you repeatedly state that there is an issue this policy is >>>> addressing. This is your base assumption. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I reiterate that to date the existing mechanisms are sufficient. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Feel free to demonstrate that they are not with evidence. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From:* Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 8, 2022 1:11:49 PM >>>> *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]> >>>> *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - >>>> Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andrew your understanding about my statements is wrong. it is >>>> unnecessary the secretariat to confirm such points, unless you have a >>>> concern about them. >>>> >>>> There is an issue with leasing existing despite the current rules don't >>>> allow them. And all I said they should always be able to enforce regardless >>>> the scenario and have all legal cover and support to do this in courts if >>>> necessary. >>>> This proposal helps text helps them further to make it even clear to a >>>> court what can and cannot be done with Internet Resources. >>>> >>>> Fernando >>>> >>>> On 08/09/2022 00:08, Andrew Yager wrote: >>>> >>>> In response to your last paragaph >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Can the secretariat confirm: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> · they have an issue with enforcement now >>>> >>>> · They have an active need that they are unable to address >>>> under this framework >>>> >>>> · That the current membership agreement is inadequate to allow >>>> them to fulfil the tasks they have >>>> >>>> Your statements infer that there is an issue, they can’t enforce >>>> behaviour and that the current policies are inadequate. I’m yet to see any >>>> evidence of this. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Andre >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Get Outlook for iOS <https://aka.ms/o0ukef> >>>> ------------------------------ >>>> >>>> *From:* Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, September 8, 2022 1:01:40 PM >>>> *To:* [email protected] <[email protected]> >>>> <[email protected]> >>>> *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - >>>> Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Hi Matt, I am sorry but I don't really take some of these emotional >>>> arguments because they are created mostly by the ones who are most taking >>>> advantage from it. There are ways in the *real* world but there are also >>>> adjustments that must be made and many still seem to not have realized >>>> after a while. One thing I find it wrong is to blame APNIC for it and >>>> suggesting they should not stop this, despite the illegality presented and >>>> therefore the unfairness with the whole of community impacted. >>>> >>>> It seems interesting however your idea of some tentative to transfer >>>> resources definitely to smaller companies, but not only from the larger >>>> holders but from *any* holder who is leasing them. In order words an idea >>>> of a proposal could be to allow a company who leases from a resources >>>> holders to have those resources forcibly transferred definitely to them >>>> regardless the permission of the resources holder if a leasing it shown to >>>> be happening there. >>>> >>>> Sorry to disagree, but appealing to leasing as the only option >>>> available at this stage is a easy path to make it worst a scenario that is >>>> only causing more and more unfairness to all. If it is wrong - and it is - >>>> it must be stopped *right now* and how to act about what exists should be >>>> carried on being discussed (in another thread) in order to help APNIC how >>>> to deal with cases properly and have all the support it may require. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Fernando >>>> >>>> On 07/09/2022 23:39, Matthew Shearing wrote: >>>> >>>> Fernando, very simply – if it was already against the rules, why this >>>> policy? There should be no need for clarification if this was already >>>> ‘illegal’ or ‘against the rules’ as you say. What is the point of this >>>> policy if it’s already clear? >>>> >>>> Further, you keep talking about IPv4 exhaustion and that we need to >>>> ‘deal with it’. The fact there exists a leasing market in the first place >>>> means that there are plenty of unused IPv4 resources. Otherwise, there >>>> would be no IPv4 addresses to lease. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> If APNIC wants to tackle ‘misuse’, that is also fine. However, why not >>>> start with those who have plenty of IP space? Why not build in guarantees >>>> that APNIC it revokes space from a large holder, any lessees currently >>>> using that space will get access to those IPv4 addresses, as they are the >>>> ones using them? Why is none of this even being discussed? It’s incredibly >>>> obvious this policy hurts mainly the smaller companies, by going after >>>> *leases*, not the big holdings themselves. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> By saying *‘there are ways to get blocks’* also tells me very clearly >>>> that you’ve either not tried recently, or you’re just willfully ignorant. >>>> For many companies, leasing is the only feasible ways to get blocks because >>>> we are priced out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Ideologically, we are all in agreement that an IPv6 world would be >>>> amazing. Unfortunately, those of us running businesses need to exist here >>>> in the real world, not in your imaginary world where we get everything we >>>> would like. If you want to help change that, we’ll all be here, cheering >>>> you on. Until then, businesses like ours don’t have the luxury of sitting >>>> around wishing – we’ve got customers we need to serve and employees we need >>>> to pay. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> These ‘emotional’ arguments are common because they are *real*. They >>>> are for businesses that exist in the real world, in an IP environment that >>>> APNIC (and other registrars) created. APNIC allowed the leasing paradigm to >>>> occur and did nothing about it. This is not some new thing – it is a mature >>>> market that has existed for a long time. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It is incredibly irresponsible for APNIC to try and roll it back now, >>>> after many years of inaction, and disingenuous for people like you to >>>> somehow claim businesses that are just trying to do the best they can in >>>> the environment we currently have are somehow at fault. This problem can be >>>> laid squarely at the feet of APNIC – and for that reason, it can and will >>>> be held liable by those damaged if any changes are made now. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This policy is approaching everything from the wrong direction. Its >>>> implementation will punish the smallest businesses while doing nothing >>>> about the largest legacy holders. If APNIC is serious about the IPv4 >>>> allocation issue, it should start with the swathes of latent resources and >>>> move backwards. This should be tempered by protections and policies which >>>> ensure smaller businesses aren’t ruined in the process. Maybe once that is >>>> solved, in several years time, it will be time to revisit this topic. For >>>> now though, this is far too premature. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> The reality is this – for many of us, leasing is right now the only >>>> viable option. Taking that away without proposing any kind of genuine >>>> alternatives (ie not the handwavium generalisations you’ve been engaging >>>> in) is reckless and will result in incredible damage to members who have >>>> simply been doing their best in an environment APNIC created in the first >>>> place. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Cheers, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Matt Shearing* >>>> *Chief Executive Officer* >>>> >>>> *¡Error! Nombre de archivo no especificado.* >>>> >>>> Brisbane, Australia (AEST) • [email protected] • +61 406 778 038 >>>> >>>> *¡Error! Nombre de archivo no especificado.* <https://www.oneqode.com/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *¡Error! Nombre de archivo no especificado.* >>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/oneqode/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 September 2022 12:15 PM >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - >>>> Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Unfortunately this shows a tentative to discuss something with lack of >>>> enough important information about the topic and also there was not proper >>>> follow of most of this thread discussion. >>>> >>>> First Internet Resources are not irrevocable assets that anyone who >>>> holds them can do whatever they like as if they own them. Unfortunately >>>> many people in this industry still don't know, but the fact that >>>> organizations hold a resource assigned to them does not mean they own it >>>> and therefore they must operate them under certain rules otherwise they >>>> risk to have them revoked, therefore they cannot be treated as an asset you >>>> purchased and may do whatever you like with it. >>>> If you purchase a server or a router it is yours and you sell or lease >>>> it for whatever amount you wish, but not with internet resources because >>>> you don't own them. >>>> >>>> It is unimportant that anything APNIC may do against those who using >>>> IPv4 blocks illegally and may have them revoked because they should never >>>> have used in that way in first instance. A while back, when they became >>>> members they have signed a contract agreeing they would use the resources >>>> according to the rules. Therefore if someone decided to do out of what has >>>> been previously agreed they did it in their own risk and cannot allege >>>> they are "being affected". >>>> >>>> Regardless how market evolves APNIC has full rights to revoke resources >>>> from members who are misusing resources not in accordance with the >>>> contracts they have signed and agreed. >>>> And by doing that APNIC is protecting community interests in detriment >>>> to individual and very specific interests that wants to use internet >>>> resources for proposes they were never conceived for. >>>> >>>> Seems that people still didn't accept IPv4 exhaustion and keep hoping >>>> for something that will never come instead of learn once for all how to >>>> deal with it. There are ways to get blocks, for example via transfers and >>>> other specific methods, but the scenario many were used for decades doesn't >>>> exist anymore and still seems people keep trying to make up stuff to >>>> benefit their own specific interest in detriment of everybody else and of >>>> the fairness with everybody involved. If a company doesn't have enough >>>> money to afford a transfer I am sorry, but that is the new reality for a >>>> while. Learn how to deal with it and use other alternatives available like >>>> getting from upstreams - who provide connectivity - until there is budget >>>> to get address via a transfer for example. And not less important, stop >>>> hiding from IPv6 saying that will not revolve. >>>> >>>> APNIC has all rights to fight in courts and is fully legally covered to >>>> enforce what members using internet resources signed and agreed for. Hardly >>>> judges will overwrite such agreement because they fell sorry that some >>>> people still didn't accept and learned to live with IPv4 exhaustion. No >>>> 'difficult' scenario gives the right to a member to void a contract they >>>> signed and agreed and win that in court. >>>> >>>> These 'emotional arguments' of people and companies that will suffer if >>>> no leasing is allowed is a common argument from organizations who profit >>>> from IP leasing and don't build any internet connectivity and is already >>>> old one. >>>> If people keep insisting in doing things out of the rules sooner or >>>> later they will have to pay the price and they should know the risk before >>>> they even started. >>>> >>>> IP addresses were not made to be rented from a resource holder who >>>> don't need them anymore to one that needs and could get them directly from >>>> the RIR. Regardless of the most noble reason, going against the rules >>>> doesn't make they valid. >>>> >>>> Fernando >>>> >>>> On 07/09/2022 22:49, Matthew Shearing wrote: >>>> >>>> Just wanted to chime in here and follow up on Mike's point (and those >>>> of several others). >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What APNIC has done by its previous conduct is create a scarce asset >>>> collected in the hands of a number of large providers, with increasingly >>>> less being issued to small providers. As with any scarce asset in human >>>> history, this necessarily creates all the prerequisites for a fee market. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Just like real estate, vehicles and other commodities, leasing is a >>>> natural evolution of scarcity in an asset class with direct utility. Right >>>> now, IPv4 blocks are like houses - some own them, but some don't have the >>>> capital resources to outright own the amount they need. Simply looking at >>>> the prices which IPv4 blocks are going for on the open market will make it >>>> clear that many smaller businesses are priced out. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Leasing represents a viable option for companies to access the blocks >>>> they need and pay manageable, monthly or yearly payments for the use of >>>> those blocks. Many businesses are reliant on these currently. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Saying that APNIC will outright ban leasing and that this will somehow >>>> benefit businesses is abjectly false. Not only will it disrupt many current >>>> business operations, but there is no guarantee that a market with more >>>> perverse incentives won't emerge afterwards. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> In our view, APNIC has already demonstrated by its statements and >>>> conduct with this policy that they have little grasp on how (and why) asset >>>> markets evolve. They've also done nothing to dissuade us that the new >>>> 'status quo' after this policy change won't be worse than the current one - >>>> which operates relatively fine. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Practically, for APNIC to say there will be no meaningful damage to >>>> current users and businesses (who are APNIC members in their own right) it >>>> must answer the following questions: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 1. What alternative does APNIC propose to the current IPv4 >>>> market and particularly, leasing options available to smaller companies and >>>> new entrants? >>>> >>>> 2. How will terminating leases currently on foot result in a >>>> better outcome for the businesses currently relying on them? >>>> >>>> 3. How will new IPv4 addresses be allocated, what timeframes and >>>> costs will be involved in this allocation? >>>> >>>> 4. Can APNIC give guarantees to current lessees who are reliant >>>> on IPv4 address leases that they can continue to access those addresses or >>>> will have replacements of similar value, at less cost, instantly after the >>>> change is made? >>>> >>>> 5. Is APNIC prepared to be held liable in lawsuits or a class >>>> action for the damages incurred by this policy change? Has it considered >>>> this risk and informed members accordingly? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It appears that those that will not be affected by this policy or those >>>> who already have large IPv4 blocks are some of the largest proponents of it >>>> - which makes sense. It is easy to vote for a change if it's only others >>>> that will be affected. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> However, there are a large number of SME businesses out there who rely >>>> on these leases to run their operations. For them, this isn't just some >>>> merely intellectual exercise. Rather, it's a question of hundreds of >>>> thousands, or even millions, of dollars. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> It's their ability to remain operational. It's their employees' >>>> livelihoods and those of their families. It's a core part of how they >>>> operate and for many, the foundation which they've built their business on. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This policy change seems to almost be a *'policy for policies sake'*. >>>> It is clear that the repercussions of this were either not considered, or >>>> not even known, as the policy notes listed 'nil' negative effects. That >>>> this is the opinion of APNIC (and it seems, of a significant portion of the >>>> community) is incredibly concerning, because it couldn't be further from >>>> the truth. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Many real businesses will be affected by this, with real people. And >>>> the flippancy with which many within APNIC are treating this proposal shows >>>> a concerning lack of empathy towards that - and a failure to grasp the >>>> nature of IPv4 addresses as a modern asset class. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Without the above questions answered, I don't see how this policy vote >>>> can go ahead - and I would implore everyone considering this policy to >>>> reject it outright. There may be issues with the current IPv4 paradigm but >>>> this is definitely not the solution. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Kind Regards >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *Matt Shearing* >>>> *Chief Executive Officer* >>>> >>>> *¡Error! Nombre de archivo no especificado.* >>>> >>>> Brisbane, Australia (AEST) • [email protected] • +61 406 778 038 >>>> >>>> *¡Error! Nombre de archivo no especificado.* <https://www.oneqode.com/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *¡Error! Nombre de archivo no especificado.* >>>> <https://www.linkedin.com/company/oneqode/> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Mike Burns <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Thursday, 8 September 2022 6:52 AM >>>> *To:* 'Fernando Frediani' <[email protected]> <[email protected]>; >>>> [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - >>>> Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Alas, Fernando, there is no alternative “drug” for people to live >>>> without IPv4. >>>> >>>> Banning leasing hurts the smallest and poorest of companies most. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> And you cannot elucidate any “major damages” suffered where leasing has >>>> actually, in reality, occurred for many years at RIPE. >>>> >>>> Yet you use this evidence-free assertion as your major argument against >>>> leasing. >>>> >>>> That some kind of serious damage will occur to the RIR system. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> As a broker who as to talk to actual, real companies in need, who can’t >>>> afford to pay upfront, can you tell me what I should say when they ask me >>>> why leasing is forbidden? If I say it’s to avoid “major damages” and they >>>> ask what they are, can you tell me? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> What major damages? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 4:33 PM >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - >>>> Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Do you understand the argument that certain drugs can alleviate certain >>>> pains but they remain forbidden because they cause a major damage to >>>> society in long term and there are alternatives for people be able to still >>>> live without have to use those type of damageable mechanisms. Companies can >>>> also live without that and still have other legally allowed mechanisms. >>>> >>>> This discussion is unnecessary for this policy discussion as what it >>>> proposes is to make something *already forbidden* clear in to the text, not >>>> to discuss if leasing should exist or not. >>>> >>>> If anyone opposes it please take attention to provide arguments and >>>> suggestions on how to address the issues raised about what the proposal >>>> really proposes. >>>> >>>> Regards >>>> Fernando >>>> >>>> On 07/09/2022 14:12, Mike Burns wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Fernando, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Do you understand my argument that smaller business cannot afford the >>>> full upfront payment but can afford monthly lease payments? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Please address that simple argument by telling me how the small >>>> business benefits by not having the lease option, but only having the >>>> purchase option. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 1:01 PM >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - >>>> Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> IP Leasing is already banned in most RIRs and should stay as is. >>>> >>>> But yes it does help as it doesn't push even further up IPv4 pricing >>>> and makes it easier for these small companies to get IPv4 via the proper >>>> and allowed way which are transfers. Other then diverting totally the >>>> propose o IPv4 Allocation, Leasing market contributes significantly to >>>> price increasing fueling the market with more demand for that type of very >>>> wrong thing. >>>> >>>> RIPE is normally not a good example for certain policies which don't >>>> seem to have receptivity in discussions on all other RIRs. >>>> >>>> There are still mechanisms that allow companies to get IP addressing >>>> either directly from the RIR, via Transfers which is a pretty common way or >>>> from the Upstream providers. People may not have got used yet to learn to >>>> live with less address and they may believe they need a bunch of address. >>>> >>>> IP Leasing will never help small companies. The ones who really benefit >>>> from it are the IP broker companies who profit from them and also the >>>> resource holders which don't justify anymore to keep those addresses and >>>> are also profiting from something that should have been re-assigned >>>> directly to those who really need and justify for them in order to build >>>> Internet Infrastructure and Connectivity and instead are leasing a asset >>>> they don't own. >>>> >>>> Fernando >>>> >>>> On 07/09/2022 12:39, Mike Burns wrote: >>>> >>>> Hi Fernando, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> So your argument is that banning leasing actually helps smaller >>>> companies in their quest for IPv4? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Are you aware that RIPE has allowed leasing for many years but is still >>>> a functioning RIR whose IPv4 sale prices are not more expensive despite the >>>> history of leasing there? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Can you reconcile that with your argument that leasing will raise >>>> prices for both leasing and transfers? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Are you aware that it’s not always possible to get IPv4 blocks from the >>>> company that is providing you with connectivity? >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Mike >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Fernando Frediani <[email protected]> <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, September 7, 2022 11:27 AM >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New version - prop-148: Clarification - >>>> Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> This is exactly the opposite. >>>> >>>> Allowing IP leasing to happen more than just tottaly divert the propose >>>> of IP assignments by RIRs it make it bad specially for smaller companies as >>>> it increases the cost for both leasing and transfers in long term. The cost >>>> of leasing is based on the transfer and if leasing is allowed then transfer >>>> prices will always go up which makes it even harder for smaller companies >>>> to go into the market. >>>> >>>> Any form of IP leasing without a direct connection relationship to >>>> provide a connectivity service makes it more expensive for smaller >>>> companies to get IP addresses to operate. >>>> >>>> Fernando >>>> >>>> On 07/09/2022 11:15, Mike Burns wrote: >>>> >>>> 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]> <[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] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *¡Error! Nombre de archivo no especificado.* >>>> <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. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> >>>> 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] >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> -- >>>> Kind regards. >>>> Lu >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ 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. >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ >>>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Kind regards. >>> Lu >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ >>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> >> > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > >
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
