Hi Andrew: Just to add, it is in my interest to have a stable RIR system, and currently out of scope policy proposals will put RIR in a very unstable states.
RIRs already in existence crisis since run out of IPv4, those policies will simply make them future irrelevant. I hope you share the same interest. On Fri, 9 Sep 2022 at 14:13, Lu Heng <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Andrew: > > We manage many companies' APNIC relationships including some large ones. > > Yes, we are aware of the current situation of APNIC. > > While details change across different jurisdictions, the fundamental I > mentioned does not change. > > My first company is in the RIPE region, then AFRINIC, but my company LARUS > in Hong Kong provides RIR membership management service to many companies, > especially here in Asia. > > If you may, can you be specific on what exactly "lack of understanding" is > on APNIC's legal position that I missed? > > While you mentioned APNIC work hand in hand with government, I would point > out that it shows a lack of understanding. > > > > > On Fri, 9 Sept 2022 at 14:07, Andrew Yager <[email protected]> wrote: > >> 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 >>> >>> > > -- > -- > Kind regards. > Lu > > -- -- Kind regards. Lu
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
