Hi Matthew, Policy development takes time. Nothing in the PDP say a policy can only be presented once. We face in almost every policy multiple versions, which is the way we could reach consensus.
You’re ignoring other people that is in favour of it. I personally don’t have any specific agenda, neither personally or from my job. You can search my 20+ years of policy development in all the 5 RIRs and you will find that I’m sometimes even presenting proposals that are contrary to my personal view point, because what it matters here is what is good for the community, not individuals, not specific business. All what you mention as disadvantages is something that APNIC can do *now* if they wish, following the license renewal terms. APNIC never permitted leasing, and the existing policies are against that, the same they are against a different usage of the allocated addressed than the ones specified in the original justification of the need. This is just facts. What the policy proposal is doing is to make it crystal clear, because to understand that today, you need to understand every bit of all the APNIC documents. Having the rules in a way that they can be understood more easily is good for the community. Regards, Jordi @jordipalet > El 30 ago 2023, a las 14:00, Matthew Shearing <[email protected]> escribió: > > 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 > > Brisbane, Australia (AEST) • [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> • +61 > 406 778 038 > <https://www.oneqode.com/> > > <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] ********************************************** 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]
