This late edit retains false information regarding the situation at RIPE even though it has been clarified on this list. The new proposal states: " Nothing is currently mentioned in RIPE about this and it is not acceptable as a justification of the need."
And this is patently false. RIPE does not have any justification of need except in one particular situation. And in that situation leasing is acceptable as justification. (That situation is an inter-regional sourced in ARIN). Why can't you just get it right? I presented the actual text of a message from RIPE last month stating this. A true statement would be: "Nothing is mentioned in RIPE about leasing, leases are accepted as valid assignments in RIPE, and RIPE allows leasing as a justification of need in transfers." Not at all what your statement implies. You might also point out that in ARIN, any address holder is free to lease out addresses to non-connected customers and receive all ARIN services supporting this, including assignments to non-connected customers and the ability to generate ROAs for them. Regards, Mike -----Original Message----- From: chku <c...@twnic.tw> Sent: Tuesday, September 13, 2022 11:59 PM To: sig-policy <sig-policy@lists.apnic.net> Subject: [sig-policy] NEW version - prop-148-v003: Clarification - Leasing of Resource s is not Acceptable Dear SIG members, A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v003: 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-v003: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez (jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com) Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudh...@ccaoi.in) Fernando Frediani (fhfred...@gmail.com) 1. Problem statement -------------------- RIRs have been conceived to manage, allocate and assign resources according to need, in such 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. 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. Note: Leasing is defined as Providing Internet Number Resources for a price (paid in any form) or even for free, when not tied to a direct connectivity service or any other APNIC accepted justification of need. 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 _______________________________________________ Go to the Sig-policy-chair mailing list on Orbit -- orbit.apnic.net/mailing-list/sig-policy-ch...@apnic.net Explore orbit.apnic.net, where the APNIC community connect, discuss and share information related to Internet addressing and networking. To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-chair-le...@apnic.net _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net _______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
