Hi all, First, this policy was proposed only last year and did not gain the support it needed. My understanding is this wasn't just due to inaccuracies, but largely due to opposition to the policy itself. Why are we seeing this resurrected again so soon with only minor changes?
We all lead busy lives. We don't have the time to be perpetually arguing the same policy proposal every year. This is beginning to feel like some are hell-bent on pushing a particular policy agenda and don't particularly care what the rest of us think. To that point, this revision clearly shares the same faults and lack of thought that the original did last year. There are a number of issues, but as an example, there are no disadvantages listed under the 'Disadvantages' section. Absolutely none. Zip. Nada. Zilch. Either the proposers are being deliberately obtuse or they haven't considered this properly. After even a couple of minutes contemplation tonight sitting at my desk with a whisky in hand, I've already come up with a small (and definitely not exhaustive) list of disadvantages that should be listed as part of this policy. Disadvantages (Non-Exhaustive) If this policy is implemented: * APNIC's attention will be taken away from doing what they are meant to be doing (ensuring organisations can effectively use IP resources and supporting members) to a secondary endeavour (becoming Asia-Pacific's 'IP Police Force'). * APNIC's role will naturally then shift from being an administrative and support body to more of an investigative and enforcement body. * Current lessors will not take an attempt to strip their income-generating resources lying down, particularly when no one has taken issue to this point in time. Lawsuits, injunctions and likely, class actions (more on this below) will begin in response to this new, combative stance from APNIC. * All of this will need to be paid from APNIC's coffers, which will likely mean serious hikes in membership fees. * APNIC will also need to significantly increase employees to meet the demand for its new enforcement arm. Workloads and thus, red tape will probably see drastic increases as well. * If allotments are revoked, it won't be just the lessors that suffer. The real issue is that hundreds (if not thousands) of businesses who currently rely on leased IPv4 space will incur almost incalculable damage as their allotments are revoked through no fault of their own. That last point is the most problematic I see from this quick consideration, and gets to the crux of a big issue. APNIC (either by their inaction or because the Policy Manual was never designed with the intent the authors of this policy claim) have permitted a fee market to develop for IPv4 space. This environment means that many players in the market who need significant IPv4 resources can only feasibly afford to lease addresses, not purchase them outright. If this policy proceeds, it directly places the operations and livelihoods of these businesses at risk. Everyone has built their companies in the current environment with no reason to expect it won't continue - and APNIC has reinforced this by their conduct. Not only this, but everyone leasing space from IP lessors has been paying good money to lease these resources and built businesses around access to them. Should this policy go into effect, it's not hard to imagine that most affected companies will quickly instruct lawyers to launch applications for injunctive relief against APNIC in courts of competent jurisdiction, at a minimum. From there, I'd also expect a plethora of individual and class action lawsuits for the same thing. Legal action like this is relatively cheap when the livelihood of your company and its employees is at stake. In the circumstances, you will find a lot of companies very motivated to make the 'cheap' choice. The above issues are just those that came to me while sipping a reasonably priced single malt. There's doubtless many more, and others on this mailing list have already expressed many of those. I believe many others (like me) actually thought this issue was already dead & buried and haven't even been paying attention to the emails. There are also many of the same issues of the proposal last year. Definition issues. Sweeping statements with no documentary evidence. The same references to intent in original policy drafting, still(!) without providing any explanatory memoranda from the original drafters as evidence. It's frankly a little infuriating, and again it leads me to ask whether the policy authors simply haven't thought about the consequences of this policy, or if they're deliberately trying to pitch this as something benign in the hopes that, maybe this year, we won't consider the consequences? In light of this, members should really ask themselves what they want APNIC to be going forward. Should it be: * an administrative body working for members; or * an enforcement body policing members. It's currently the former, but this proposal sets the groundwork for the latter. In short, this is a bad policy. It will destroy companies, cost jobs, destabilise our industry, turn APNIC into an all-powerful policing organisation and likely spawn countless lawsuits & expense. If this is what members want, then feel free to support this. Otherwise let's do away with this proposal once and for all and get back to more productive endeavours. Best, Matt Shearing Chief Executive Officer [https://www.oneqode.com/img/email-pin.png] Brisbane, Australia (AEST) • [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> • +61 406 778 038 [OneQode™]<https://www.oneqode.com/> [Follow us on LinkedIn]<https://www.linkedin.com/company/oneqode/> On Sat, Aug 05, 2023 at 3:00 AM, Shaila Sharmin <[email protected]<mailto:[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]<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]
