prop-148: Clarification – Leasing of Resources is not Acceptable

Proposal text prop-148-v003
Objective

This proposal suggests explicitly stating in the policy document that leasing of addresses is not permitted in the APNIC region.

The existing APNIC policies are not explicit about this, but leasing of addresses is not acceptable if it is 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 thus the renewal of the annual license for the use of the addresses would not be valid either.

Current status Returned to the authors
Authors

Jordi Palet Martinez, Amrita Choudhury, and Fernando Frediani

Relevant forum Policy SIG
Previous versions

prop-148-v001

prop-148-v002

Status at other RIRs

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.

Secretariat impact assessment

Version 1

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.

Clarifications:

Is this proposal restricted to LIRs/ISPs, or does it apply to all APNIC
account holders?

The proposal does not specify how an APNIC investigation should be initiated.
Should there be a form to report this, similar to IRT escalation?

Does this proposal apply to all existing allocations or only those delegated
after the policy is implemented?

Implementation:

This proposal may require changes to the system.

If this proposal reaches consensus, implementation may be completed within
3 months.

Version 2

The Secretariat thanks the authors and the community for taking the impact assessment clarifications into consideration.

Proposal history
11 August 2022 Version 1 posted to the Policy SIG mailing list for discussion and community development.
26 August 2022 Version 2 posted to the Policy SIG mailing list for discussion and community development.
14 September 2022 Version 3 posted to the Policy SIG mailing list for discussion and community development.
15 September 2022 Did not seek consensus at APNIC 54.
19 September 2022 Version 3 returned to the author and the Policy SIG mailing list for further discussion.