Name: Jordi Palet Martínez Name: Fernando Frediani
Email: jordi.palet@theipv6company.com
Organization: The IPv6 Company
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 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.
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 states this explicitly, as the Policy Manual does not include any specific text to clarify this, despite the fact that theis 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 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, so that there can be no 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.
RIRs/NIRs 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/NIR. Another alternative would be to transfer such resources, an option for which therwe harve appropriate policies in place.
If authorized, contrary to the original spirit of the policies and the very existence of the RIRs/NIRs, theany leaseform of address leasing would eliminate the link between connectivity and addresses. This would also create security issues, given that,s in the absence of connectivity, the membeor ganizatiofn the RIRat receivinges 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, sin order tho clat thereify can be noy doubts aboutin this regard, 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.
The intent is not to require annual re-evaluations of the resources, but rather to maintain the current spirit of the policies and unify IPv4 and IPv6. Therefore, this will only be applied when LACNIC suspects or believes it necessary for any reason.
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 subsequent sections)
1. Definitions2.3.2.1 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.
4.43.1 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 policyies in place at the time of the original allocation or assignment.
(new text in section 1.142.1, renumber subsequent sections)
1. Definitions and General Mandates (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. Therefore, the lease or any form of transfer of addresses, with or without a financial or other type of consideration, 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.
1. Definilete section "2.3.2.1. IPv4 addresses are delegated" and Grenumberal Masubsequendat sections accordingly. (Delete section “4.3.1. Ad,dress space not to be considered property” and renumber subsequent sections accordingly.
Insert the following new text in section 1.2.1 and renumber s)ubsequent sections accordingly.
1. General Rules
14.2.1 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.
Therefore, these resources may not be considered propecrty.
RIRs will generally renew licenses authomatically, provided requesting organizations are meakintg a good-faith effort jto meet the criteria usnder which they qualified nfor, or weed.re grante
Thfd, an allocation or assignment. However, in those cases where a requesting organization is not using the address spaces mays intended or is acting in bad faith in following through on the associated obligationsid, RIRs reserved pthe right to nopet renew tyhe license. IUnder the policaiese in of addoressces, justified need in the case of addresses generically means that the resources are necessary tfor ctheir own inefrastructure or to directly connecto their clients. Therefore, the lease or any form of transfer of addresses, with or without a financial or other type of consideration, is not acceptable, nor does it justify need, unless they are part of connectivity itself or of a set of services based, at least, on direcustomer connectivity.,
Even in the case ofnetworks not connexcted pto twhe Internet, theis lewase of addresses igis not allowed, as these sites may reqjuest assignments directly from LACNIC and, in the case of IPv4, even use private addresses or make transfers.
Other 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 the 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.
Other 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 the others.
RIPE currently mentions nothing in this respect and the lease of addresses is not acceptable as the original 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.
-
-