Hi Jordi: Exactly.
You just made my point. Because lack of participation and disconnect from the real community, policy made here are highly challengeable. Not to mention the policy is just a private company policy, carry same legal weight as your company dress code. If you as individuals in a democratic country can challenge the law, challenge a questionable company policy is very easy. On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:39 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy < [email protected]> wrote: > Laws aren’t ONLY made by means of elected representatives of majority of > the population. Minorities together in parliaments also make laws. > > But further than that, individuals, not elected, can make laws (by means > of law changes). At least in my country, a certain number of signatures > properly documented from (non-elected) citizens, can do that. > > Also a single individual can fight in courts against laws. I’ve got > success a couple of times in my country by means of Constitutional Courts > cases against my government and specific laws, and my claim triggered law > changes, good for all. This is what I mean when say that any individual can > contribute to the good of the community, if you do the effort. > > Regards, > Jordi > > @jordipalet > > > El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:24, Lu Heng <[email protected]> escribió: > > Law maker are elected representative of majority population. > > Jordi, remind me who elected you? > > On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:20 jordi.palet--- via SIG-policy < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Ignorance of the law doesn’t mean you’re bind to it. Same here. >> >> The PDP is open to all, is not about 20 or 2.000.000 people. All Internet >> users on the earth can participate, is not an exclusive club. >> >> Regards, >> Jordi >> >> @jordipalet >> >> >> El 2 sept 2023, a las 12:13, Lu Heng <[email protected]> escribió: >> >> >> ignorance does not constitute consensus. >> >> And that is the fundamental problem of this list, a small group of people >> think they can represent all internet user on earth. >> >> No, you can not, policy pass here does not reflect true community wish, >> policy pass here only reflect the consensus of people participating in the >> discussion, in which by my count, only 20 people? >> >> People haven’t pay attention or don’t care, does not mean they agree what >> you. >> >> >> >> On Sat, 2 Sep 2023 at 18:09 Lu Heng <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> 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] >>> >>> >> >> ********************************************** >> 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]
