Dear Colleagues, I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum Steering Team.
I would like to express my gratitude to Policy-Sig Chair/Co-Chair and the APNIC Secretariat. In the past, policy proposals were posted to the SIG-Policy ML in batches after the proposal deadline four weeks before OPM, but now they have posted the proposed policies sequentially to the SIG-Policy ML without waiting for the deadline. This allowed us enough time to translate the proposals and introduce them to our community for discussion. Then I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-148, based on a meeting we organised on 30th Aug to discuss these proposals. Many neutral opinions were expressed about this proposal. (comment details) - I agree with the concept of prohibiting leases, but the proposal should not affect to the party who has leased the IPv4 from another party. - JPNIC has a text equivalent to prohibiting leasing in its guidelines. If this proposal becomes a consensus, it is necessary to consider including similar text in the address policy depending on its content. Regards, Satoru Tsurumaki / JPOPF Steering Team 2023年8月5日(土) 2:00 Shaila Sharmin <[email protected]>: > > 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]
