Dear Colleagues, My name is Evelina, I represent IPXO, the largest IP leasing platform and we don’t support the proposal "prop-148-v003: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable", because it opposes to the concept of free, open, and equal Internet.
1. Growing scarcity of IPv4 addresses. RIRs have exhausted their supply of IPv4 and their stated purpose is to assist growth. We believe leasing improves this, and opposite, by prohibiting lease and not offering any alternative way to receive IPv4 addresses RIR is limiting access to IPv4 addresses and free, open and equal internet. 2. By limiting the access for everyone to IPv4 addresses and denying the right to lease IPv4 addresses, RIR would create situation of monopoly, because bigger and wealthy organizations are able to obtain even more resources, on the other hand, smaller organizations can’t get the access. In our opinion it should be opposite, and RIR should liberalize the market for IPv4 addresses by showing more flexibility. RIR should stand for a good faith position that promotes an equitable system of Internet number assignment. 3. We think that RIR should open and govern the market of lease, prohibiting it would lead to the users’ activities where they mask the lease; and again, it will lead to cybersecurity issues. RIR should serve as gatekeeper and registrar of IPv4 assets and encourage better transparency, not opposite. 4. If RIR wants to control lease or transfer of LIR’s assets, it creates situation, where RIR interferes into the business model or business plan of the LIR’s entity. If RIR prohibits LIR to make one or other transaction, it acts ultra vires, - beyond the authority of RIR to perform. It is not an audit or supervisory institution, and should encourage the community to grow and develop, but not control, interfere, or prohibit commercial transactions of LIR companies. 5. Some RIR members that strive to prohibit IP Lease explain this initiative as encouragement for organizations to migrate to IPv6, however, it is not a road to IPv6 adoption, but merely a roadblock. It should be known that bureaucratic and police state methods have never led to the progress or development. In this case, if IP lease would be prohibited, it would only create artificial problems for smaller entities which need and would like to lease IP addresses. So, instead of contributing to internet growth, RIR would “audit” LIR’s business activities and discourage trust and collaboration of RIR members. 6. The authors of this proposal overloaded it with biased and misleading information. For example, the argument of authors that “IP Leasing is already banned in most RIRs and should stay as is” is wrong and misleading. According to the official statement of RIPE in the very similar discussion on analogous authors’ suggestion in ARIN region, “In the RIPE region the term "leasing" is not defined and therefore it does not play a role in the request evaluation.” Posting desperate and fabricated authors’ slogans in APNIC and ARIN policy suggestion groups do not turn them into the facts. Actually, it is very clear, that the authors of this suggestion seek “to encourage faster IPv6 adoption” because they are interested parties. However, they suggest achieving IPv6 adoption by simply banning the access of IPv4, which is completely illogical and primitive way. 7. The text of the suggestion is full of obscurities. Here are some of them: “Network connectivity services provided directly to customers” – how it is going to be checked if services are provided “directly to customers”? What the word “directly” means in this context? Is RIR obliged to have the list of each LIR’s customers and check the contractual obligations of LIR and customer? “any form of IP address leasing” – the term of “leasing” in the 3rd latest version is finally added as a “Note”, however, definition raised more questions than answers. First, it says that leasing is providing resources “for a price or even for free” and this is the core of the definition, however, it doesn’t define parties of such “transaction”, or who provides resources to whom. Second, what kind of “leasing” is defined, if it also can be “for free”? Third, with this construction, even "transfer" could go under this definition, because it’s not mentioned that resources are provided "for a specified time" or "temporary". “if it is not part of a set of services based” – again, what is a “set of services based”? is there a data base or list of all and any activities permitted? “such sites can request direct assignments from APNIC or the relevant NIR” – “can request” is not a policy wording and for sure it’s not the same as “should receive”. In other words, there is no warranty or assurance that LIR will get the resources, only a moral, what they can do. “APNIC investigation” – with this proposal, the authors are willing to introduce the investigatory powers to APNIC and encourage APNIC to “proactively investigate”. However, such suggestion requires a clear description of such new body, its structure and powers delegated. It should also be included in the By-laws of APNIC. The proposal mentions “case of reports”, which is a new procedure and document, so, along with such proposal, it must follow all the “penal code” of APNIC with all the investigative powers and description of “cases”. “revocation may apply against any account holders” – it is not clear what kind of “revocation against holders” may apply, is it revocation of resources? Or revocation of membership? Evelina Eidukaite Legal Counsel at IPXO Sent from Mail<https://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=550986> for Windows
_______________________________________________ sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
