This is not a proposal about if Leasing should be allow/disallowed, but
to make something clear in the policy text about what already exists and
is what it is.
Fernando
On 14/09/2022 10:35, Evelina Eidukaitė via sig-policy wrote:
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 3^rd
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 [email protected]
_______________________________________________
sig-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
