Hi Sunny, all, 1) The proposal only mentions leasing as an example of what is not valid, and we say "any form of leasing”, so we don’t need a definition.
2) Proposals don’t state how the implementation must be done. There are ways to automate this verification up to certain extent, such as looking for the AS path. Same about the frequency. If automated, it can be done even every week. I don’t think we need to state that. 3) The proposal already mention “regardless of when the delegation has been issued”, so we believe that’s clear? 4) We don’t change the existing policies about usage by “subsidiaries” or anything similar, so whatever is accepted today on this regards, or was part of the original justification, continues to be the same which this proposal. Please, let us know if this resolves the staff questions, so we can tidy up the text. After reviewing all the inputs and the last week webinar, we believe that small tweaks and probably shortening the proposal text will make it clear, so working on that. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet > El 22 ago 2023, a las 1:29, Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <[email protected]> > escribió: > > --------------------------------------------------------------- > > Secretariat Impact Assessment: prop-148-v004 > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > APNIC notes that this proposal suggests explicitly stating in the > APNIC Internet Number Resources policy document that leasing of > addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region. > > Questions/Comments: > ------------------- > - Can the authors provide a clear definition of what is considered > 'leasing'? > > - How do the authors propose APNIC verifies that IP addresses are > being leased and how often do they suggest APNIC should be checking? > > - Does this proposal apply to all existing delegations or only those > addresses delegated after the proposal is implemented (if it reaches > consensus)? > > - How does this proposal apply to account holders who have previously > received delegations and use the IP addresses under different entities > (for example, subsidiaries using them in different locations)? > > Implementation: > --------------- > This proposal may require changes to APNIC systems. If this proposal > reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within three months. > > Regards, > Sunny > > > On 5/08/2023 2:59 am, Shaila Sharmin wrote: >> Dear SIG members, >> >> A new version of the proposal "prop-148-v004: 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 Anupam >> APNIC Policy SIG Chairs >> >> >> ----------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> prop-148-v004: Clarification - Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable >> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >> >> Proposer: Jordi Palet Martinez ([email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>) >> Amrita Choudhury ([email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>) >> Fernando Frediani ([email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>) >> >> >> 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 >> connectivity service, as it was documented with the original need >> justification. >> >> 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 a NIR, >> the justification of the need implies the need to use on their own >> infrastructure and/or network connectivity services provided to >> customers. As a result, any form of IP address leasing is unacceptable, >> nor does it justify the need, unless otherwise justified in the original >> request. 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 should 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 >> -- >> Regards, >> Shaila Sharmin >> +8801811447396 >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/[email protected]/ >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>_______________________________________________ > 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]
