It's very good to have your feedback for the secretariat, thanks Tsurumaki-san.
Please feel free to let us know of any other improvements that we can help with, any time. Paul. Get BlueMail for Android<https://bluemail.me> On Sep 1, 2023, at 13:16, Satoru Tsurumaki <stsur...@gmail.com<mailto:stsur...@gmail.com>> wrote: 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 <shaila.sharmin....@gmail.com>: 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 (jordi.pa...@theipv6company.com) Amrita Choudhury (amritachoudh...@ccaoi.in) Fernando Frediani (fhfred...@gmail.com) 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/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net ________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
_______________________________________________ SIG-policy - https://mailman.apnic.net/sig-policy@lists.apnic.net/ To unsubscribe send an email to sig-policy-le...@lists.apnic.net
