Standard form contract favors the party who not doing the drafting. And I would say many members disagree, a simple questionnaire to members “do you want to own your IPs?”receives overwhelming positive answer.
And it’s just a policy of a private limited company. It does not constitute law. And this part of policy need to be changed and updated in the future to reflect the market reality. On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:05 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy < [email protected]> wrote: > Existing policies, with the consensus of the community, which are part of > the membership agreement and consequently accepted by all the members: > > 4.0. Resource License > > It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests > of the Internet community as a whole, for Internet number resources to be > considered freehold property. > > Neither delegation nor registration confers ownership of resources. > Account holders that use them are considered “custodians” rather than > “owners” of the resource and are not entitled to sell or otherwise transfer > that resource to other parties outside the provisions in this document. > > Internet resources are regarded as public resources that should only be > distributed according to demonstrated need. > The policies in this document are based upon the understanding that > globally unique unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned. > > > > Regards, > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:59, Lu Heng <[email protected]> escribió: > > Hi Jordi: > > Who define those legal rights? > > Who said it is not a property? > > > > On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:55 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Really ugly and unfortunate that you compare those things, and I guess >> against code of conduct. >> >> I just can insist that you can’t sell something that is not a property. >> You have the usage rights. You can own a house or have the right to use it >> (rental), and the right to use it may allow you to transfer that right to >> another person or not. So not the same reselling that transferring >> addresses, is not just a matter of wording, but about the real meaning of >> those words, from a legal perspective. >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> >> @jordipalet >> >> >> El 2 sept 2023, a las 11:43, Lu Heng <[email protected]> escribió: >> >> Hi Jordi: >> >> Tell me the difference between reselling and transferring? >> >> Does it equal to the 500 USD someone paid to the girl he met last night? >> Of course it’s not prostitution, just little goodwill. >> >> Nominally a transfer involve that 500USD I just mentioned. >> >> >> >> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 17:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy < >> [email protected]> wrote: >> >>> It is true that RIPE is too liberal, but not so to allow reselling >>> addresses, because those aren’t a property. You can transfer them. That’s >>> it. >>> >>> Regards, >>> Jordi >>> >>> @jordipalet >>> >>> >>> El 30 ago 2023, a las 10:40, Lu Heng <[email protected]> escribió: >>> >>> Hi Jordi: >>> >>> That must be a long time ago. >>> >>> RIPE's current policy is you ask you get, no need to provide a reason. >>> >>> Of course that means you can get IP for leasing, you can even get IP for >>> resale. >>> >>> On Wed, 30 Aug 2023 at 16:32, jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy < >>> [email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi Mike, >>>> >>>> There is no inaccuracy on the RIPE point. Long time ago I made the >>>> question to RIPE staff and a justification on an original request for IP >>>> resources for leasing will not have been accepted as a valid one. Not >>>> talking about transfers here, just original justification of the need. >>>> >>>> Working in a new version following all the inputs. Tks! >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Jordi >>>> >>>> @jordipalet >>>> >>>> >>>> El 22 ago 2023, a las 16:19, Mike Burns <[email protected]> escribió: >>>> >>>> Hello, >>>> >>>> The revised Section 3 contains the same inaccuracy that I have pointed >>>> out before in other fora to the authors. >>>> Notably the situation described in RIPE below is false. >>>> RIPE only applies needs-tests to inbound inter-regional transfers, and >>>> in this case leasing them out is a justified use. >>>> If you don’t accept my assertion, I invite you to contact RIPE directly. >>>> >>>> Can the authors provide a succinct problem statement that states the >>>> problem we are trying to solve? >>>> The one I can see is the claim that there is an existing “security >>>> problem” on the Internet related directly to blocks being used outside the >>>> registrant’s “immediate physical control.” >>>> Maybe the proposal would be easier to understand if it was simplified >>>> to something like “Addresses may only be utilized by networks that the >>>> registrant has immediate physical control of.”? >>>> Because then it would be easier to block and filter content, making it >>>> safer for the community? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Mike Burns >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> *From:* Srinivas (Sunny) Chendi <[email protected]> >>>> *Sent:* Monday, August 21, 2023 7:30 PM >>>> *To:* [email protected] >>>> *Subject:* [sig-policy] Re: New version: prop-148 Clarification - >>>> Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable >>>> >>>> >>>> --------------------------------------------------------------- >>>> >>>> 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]) >>>> 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] >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -- >>> Kind regards. >>> Lu >>> >>> >>> >>> ********************************************** >>> 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] > > > > ********************************************** > 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]
