Name: Jordi Palet Martínez
Email: jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
Organization: The IPv6 Company

Name: Fernando Frediani
Email: fhfrediani@gmail.com
Organization: -

Name: Jordi Palet Martínez
Email: jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
Organization: The IPv6 Company

Name: Fernando Frediani
Email: fhfrediani@gmail.com
Organization: -

The LACNIC policies currently in force do not consider the lease of addresses to be acceptable unless they are an integral part of a connectivity service. Specifically, the justification of the need for the addresses would not be valid for address blocks whose purpose is not to connect clients of an LIR/ISP and, therefore, the renewal of the annual license to use of the addresses would not be valid either.

This proposal expressly states this, as the Policy Manual does not include any specific text to clarify this, despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire text and is applied to justify the need for resources.

The LACNIC policies currently in force do not consider the lease of addresses to be acceptable unless they are an integral part of a connectivity service. Specifically, the justification of the need for the addresses would not be valid for address blocks whose purpose is not to connect clients of an LIR/ISP and, therefore, the renewal of the annual license to use of the addresses would not be valid either.

This proposal expressly states this explicitly, as the Policy Manual does not include any specific text to clarify this, despite the fact that the intention in this regard underlies the entire text and is applied to justify the need for resources.

RIRs were designed to manage, distribute, and assign resources based on actual need, such that an LIR/ISP will have the addresses needed to connect its clients directly based on justified need. Thus, addresses are not property that can be traded or used to do business.

When the justification of the need for the resources disappears for whatever reason, the most honorable thing to do would be to return the addresses to the RIR. Another alternative would be to transfer such resources, for which there are appropriate policies in place.

If authorized, contrary to the original spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the lease of addresses would eliminate the link between connectivity and addresses. This would also create security issues, given that, in the absence of connectivity, the member of the RIR receiving the license to use the addresses does not have immediate physical control to manage or filter these resources, something that could potentially result in damages to the entire community.

Therefore, to make it absolutely clear and eliminate any doubts, the policies should explicitly state that addresses may not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a direct connectivity service.

These changes take into account existing texts in the IPv4 and IPv6 sections, which already specify that addresses are not to be considered property, but rather licensed for use based on the initial justification of need. This proposal unifies these texts for reasons of simplicity.

RIRs were designed to manage, distribute, and assign resources based on actual need, such that an LIR/ISP will have the addresses needed to connect its clients directly based on justified need. Thus, addresses are not freehold property that can be traded or used to do business.

When the justification of the need for the resources disappears for whatever reason, the most honorable thing to do would be to return the addresses to the RIR. Another alternative would be to transfer such resources, for which there are appropriate policies in place.

If authorized, contrary to the original spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs, the lease of addresses would eliminate the link between connectivity and addresses. This would also create security issues, given that, in the absence of connectivity, the member of the RIR receiving the license to use the addresses does not have immediate physical control to manage or filter these resources, something that could potentially result in damages to the entire community.

Therefore, tso make it habsolutely cltheare cand eliminatbe anyo doubt about this, the policies should explicitly state that addresses may not be leased “per se”, but only as part of a direct connectivity service.

These changes take into account existing texts in the IPv4 and IPv6 sections, which already specify that addresses are not to be considered property, but rather licensed for use based on the initial justification of need. This proposal unifies these texts for reasons of simplicity.

1. Definitions

2.3.2.1 IPv4 addresses are delegated

LACNIC shall allocate Internet resources according to a delegation plan. This resource allocation plan shall be valid for one year. This allocation is renewable, and shall be subject to the conditions established at the time of renewal.

4.4.1 Address space not to be considered property

It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold property.

The policies in this chapter are based upon the understanding that globally-unique IPv6 unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned. Specifically, IP addresses will be allocated and assigned on a license basis, with licenses subject to renewal on a periodic basis. The granting of a license is subject to specific conditions applied at the start or renewal of the license.

RIRs will generally renew licenses automatically, provided requesting organizations are making a good-faith effort at meeting the criteria under which they qualified for or were granted an allocation or assignment. However, in those cases where a requesting organization is not using the address space as intended, or is showing bad faith in following through on the associated obligation, RIRs reserve the right to not renew the license.

Note that when a license is renewed, the new license will be evaluated under and governed by the applicable IPv6 address policies in place at the time of renewal, which may differ from the policy in place at the time of the original allocation or assignment.

(new text in section 1.14.1, renumber the following sections)

1. Definitions

2.3.2.1 IPv4 aAddresses are dDelegated

LACNIC shall allocate Internet resources according to a delegation plan. This resource allocation plan shall be valid for one year. This allocation is renewable, and shall be subject to the conditions established at the time of renewal.

4.4.1 Address space not to be considered property

It is contrary to the goals of this document and is not in the interests of the Internet community as a whole for address space to be considered freehold property.

The policies in this chapter are based upon the understanding that globally-unique IPv6 unicast address space is licensed for use rather than owned. Specifically, IP addresses will be allocated and assigned on a license basis, with licenses subject to renewal on a periodic basis. The granting of a license is subject to specific conditions applied at the start or renewal of the license.

RIRs will generally renew licenses automatically, provided requesting organizations are making a good-faith effort at meeting the criteria under which they qualified for or were granted an allocation or assignment. However, in those cases where a requesting organization is not using the address space as intended, or is showing bad faith in following through on the associated obligation, RIRs reserve the right to not renew the license.

Note that when a license is renewed, the new license will be evaluated under and governed by the applicable IPv6 address policies in place at the time of renewal, which may differ from the policy in place at the time of the original allocation or assignment.

(new text in section 1.14.1, renumber thsubse followiquengt sections)

1. Definitions and General Mandates

(Deleted, renumber the following sections)

(Deleted, renumber the following sections)

1.14.1 Internet resources are delegated, not property.

LACNIC allocates and assigns Internet resources under a delegation scheme, with delegations valid for one year and subject to renewal provided that the requirements specified in the policies in force at the time of renewal are met, especially the requirement of justified need.

Therefore, these resources may not be considered property.

In the case of addresses, justified need generically means that the resources are necessary to connect directly to clients. Thus, the lease of addresses is not considered acceptable, nor does it justify need, unless they are part of a set of services based, at least, on direct connectivity.

Even in the case of networks not connected to the Internet, the lease of addresses is not allowed, as these sites may request assignments directly from LACNIC and, in the case of IPv4, even use private addresses or make transfers.

1. Definitions and General Mandates

(Deleted, renumber the following sections)

(Deleted, renumber the following sections)

1.14.1 Internet resources are delegated, and not their holder's property.

LACNIC allocates and assigns Internet resources under a delegation scheme, with delegations valid for one year and subject to renewal provided that the requirements specified in the policies in force at the time of renewal are met, especially the requirement of justified need.

Therefore, these resources may not be considered property.

In the case of addresses, justified need generically means that the resources are necessary to connect directly to clients. Thuserefore, the lease or any form of transfer of addresses, wisth or without a financial or other type of consideredation, is not acceptable, nor does it justify need, unless they are part of a set of services based, at least, on direct connectivity.

Even in the case of networks not connected to the Internet, the lease of addresses is not allowed, as these sites may request assignments directly from LACNIC and, in the case of IPv4, even use private addresses or make transfers.

The policy manuals of other RIRs do not explicitly authorize the lease of addresses, so equivalent proposals will be presented there.

RIPE currently mentions nothing in this respect and the lease of addresses is not acceptable as a justification of need. APNIC and AFRINIC staff have confirmed that the lease of addresses is not allowed. ARIN does not consider the lease of addresses a justification of need.

The policy manuals of oOther RIRs do not explicitly authorize the lease of addresses,. Given that their policy manuals are not explicit in this sense, equivalent proposals have been presented in ARIN and APNIC and will later be presented in ther others.

RIPE currently mentions nothing in this respect and the lease of addresses is not acceptable as a justification of need. APNIC and AFRINIC staff have confirmed that the lease of addresses is not allowed. ARIN does not consider the lease of addresses a justification of need.

-

-