Hi Jordi, I didn't ask about the policies, I meant if they have authority to investigate the "usage of IP addresses", As an example, with RIPE NCC you get an /24 when you become a member (you still need to wait in their queue). But I never heard that they investigate the usage of the IP addresses that you receive as an allocation from them. (since 2012 they don't even ask about the "usage of the IP addresses")
Can you please provide more details on this. Thanks, Arash Naderpour On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 19:36, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy < [email protected]> wrote: > Hi Arash, > > All the RIRs have similar provisions, policies are a must to continue > receiving services as a member, and this include policies. In the case of > APNIC, see > https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/membership/membership-agreement/ > > > 3.2 Member’s obligations… d. Comply with this agreement and all APNIC > Documents. > > > And of course, Policies are APNIC Documents. > > 5.1 APNIC Documents > The Member agrees that: > > 1. The APNIC Documents may be amended from time to time in accordance > with the Document Review Policy; > 2. Any such amendments are binding upon the Member; > 3. APNIC Documents as they exist from time to time form an integral > part of and apply fully to this agreement; > 4. If the membership is either terminated or not renewed, the Member > shall continue to be bound by the provisions of this agreement and other > APNIC Documents to the extent that the provisions relate to the use of > resources or disputes arising from this > agreement or any other APNIC documents. > > Usage of address is part of the validity of the justification. See the > policy manual. And of course, APNIC can ensure that the license keeps being > valid, by means of any method they deem convenient. > > 4.1. License Renewal > > Licenses to account holders shall be renewable on the following conditions: > > - The original basis of the delegation remains valid, and ... > > > Regards, > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > El 30 ago 2023, a las 11:18, Arash Naderpour <[email protected]> > escribió: > > Hi Jordi, > > Can you please provide some more details on this: > > "APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any > possible usage of the addresses against the policies" > > I'm interested to know exactly if and how they are authorised to > investigate the "usage of the addresses". > > Thanks, > > Arash Naderpour > > > > > On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 18:16, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Hi Arash, >> >> APNIC (and all the RIRs) already have the authority to investigate any >> possible usage of the addresses against the policies. If you justified a >> need and you now make a different usage, which is against the policies or >> the original justification, you are in contractual breach, and the RIR has >> the right not only to investigate it, but also to recover the addresses. >> >> This proposal is not changing that, just making it more obvious, crystal >> clear. >> >> Transparency is ensured because the policy manual is public, so I don’t >> understand your point here. >> >> This version of the proposal, even if it mentions leasing, is only to >> reinforce the point that according to existing policies, the justification >> of the need is attached to connectivity services. We don’t define leasing >> on purpose, we say any form of leasing, in the sense of usage different >> than the original justified need. >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> >> @jordipalet >> >> >> El 9 ago 2023, a las 1:55, Arash Naderpour <[email protected]> >> escribió: >> >> Hi, >> >> I'm opposing the proposed policy change, >> >> I have concerns about the potential implications of the proposed policy >> change, particularly in regards to granting APNIC the authority to >> investigate and make decisions regarding the daily usage of IP >> addresses. The proposed policy change introduces a mechanism for APNIC to >> actively investigate and make judgments on the daily usage of IP addresses, >> effectively centralizing decision-making power. This shift raises concerns >> about the potential for inconsistent enforcement, lack of transparency, and >> an undue burden on both resource holders and APNIC itself. >> Attempting to assess the multitude of use cases and intentions behind >> leased IP addresses is a daunting and potentially subjective task that >> could lead to inefficiencies and disputes. >> The document mentions that other Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) do >> not authorize address leasing either. However, the absence of address >> leasing in their policies may not be indicative of a universal best >> practice. Each region has unique network requirements and circumstances >> that may warrant different approaches to resource management. Instead of >> adopting a one-size-fits-all approach, We should consider the specific >> needs of our region when crafting policies. There might be legitimate use >> cases where IP address leasing could serve as a valuable option. For >> instance, organizations with varying seasonal demands or temporary >> infrastructure needs could benefit from leasing IP addresses. >> >> Regards, >> >> Arash Naderpour >> >> >> >> On Sat, 5 Aug 2023 at 03:00, Shaila Sharmin <[email protected]> >> 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]) >>> 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 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] >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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] > > > > ********************************************** > 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]
