RE: [address-policy-wg] Enabling Methods for Reallocation of IPv4 Resources
At 12:20 AM 12-03-08 +0000, michael.dillon@bt.com wrote:
"Expired per the 1st of Januari 2007"
The following one is apparently still valid though: http://www.st-ab.nl/wetten/1064_Wet_op_het_financieel_toezicht_Wft.htm
Yes, the little details are important.
There is no mention at all about virtual property or the 'owning' of numbers though. A zipcode is no property, nor is a bankaccount number etc.
Nobody has seriously suggested that IP addresses are property or that transfer policies would change the ownership of IP addresses. Instead, people are talking about buying and selling contracts which give the right to use a specific IP address allocation. This is a lot like a commodities contract, for instance you can buy a contract for the delivery of a ton of copper, and then sell that contract to somebody else. You never actually own a ton of copper because you are buying and selling contracts. There are many varieties of contract like this, usually called derivatives (except for insurance and re-insurance). All of these contracts are covered by the MiFID rules and are regulated by national regulators such as the FAS in the UK.
If the wording in RIPE stated the word "lease", why wouldn't that work? A customer comes and "leases" IP space from RIPE for the duration of their contract with RIPE (membership dues, fulfillment of rules, etc.) When their membership ends, the lease is broken and the IP space returns to RIPE. I bring your attention to: http://www.ripe.net/rs/news/global-ipv6-assign-2001-12-22.html 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 global IPv6 policies in this document are based upon the understanding that address space is lease-licensed for use rather than owned. All Internet Registries are expected to manage address space operations correctly in accordance with this principle. According to this policy, IP addresses will be allocated on a lease- license basis, with such lease-licenses to be of specific limited duration of normally one year. Conditions of a lease-license have specific conditions applied at the start or renewal of the lease. Lease-licenses will typically be renewed automatically at the end of their duration when the following two conditions are met: a) The original basis of the allocation remains valid. b) Registration requirements relating to that allocation have been fulfilled at the time of renewal However, when a lease-license is renewed, the new lease-license will be evaluated under and governed by the applicable resource allocation and renewal policies in place at the time of renewal. Changes to the conditions of current lease-licences shall be subject to a definite period of notice, except in exceptional circumstances recognized by a consensus of the Internet community. As address space is not owned, and consistent with the desire to avoid excessive fragmentation of address space, it may become necessary in extreme circumstances to renumber assignments. Such renumbering will only be undertaken after extensive consultation with the Internet community. ---------------------------------------- Unfortunately, RIPE has never used the word "lease" after 2001. The word "lease" was removed when the doc became policy: http://www.ripe.net/docs/ipv6policy.html Also the entire last paragraph was removed including the critical "As address space is not owned...". I have no clue as to whether anything similar was done for IPv4. -Hank
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Unfortunately, RIPE has never used the word "lease" after 2001. The word "lease" was removed when the doc became policy:
In countries whose legal system is derived from the british legal code, the word "lease" can attract the attention of the tax authorities who like to feel that all leases should be officially stamped and should therefore incur a stamp duty of several per cent of the lease cost. It's unfortunate that the word is polluted in this way - in other respects, it seems like an ideal word to use in these circumstances. Nick -- Network Ability Ltd. | Head of Operations | Tel: +353 1 6169698 3 Westland Square | INEX - Internet Neutral | Fax: +353 1 6041981 Dublin 2, Ireland | Exchange Association | Email: nick@inex.ie
* Nick Hilliard:
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Unfortunately, RIPE has never used the word "lease" after 2001. The word "lease" was removed when the doc became policy:
In countries whose legal system is derived from the british legal code, the word "lease" can attract the attention of the tax authorities who like to feel that all leases should be officially stamped and should therefore incur a stamp duty of several per cent of the lease cost.
Over here, a lease implies that it's RIPE NCC's job to make sure that the prefix is and remains in usable shape for its intended purpose (globally routeable, not blacklisted etc.).
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 04:34:31PM +0100, Florian Weimer wrote:
* Nick Hilliard:
Hank Nussbacher wrote:
Unfortunately, RIPE has never used the word "lease" after 2001. The word "lease" was removed when the doc became policy:
In countries whose legal system is derived from the british legal code, the word "lease" can attract the attention of the tax authorities who like to feel that all leases should be officially stamped and should therefore incur a stamp duty of several per cent of the lease cost.
Over here, a lease implies that it's RIPE NCC's job to make sure that the prefix is and remains in usable shape for its intended purpose (globally routeable, not blacklisted etc.).
does RIPE NCC -really- provide assurance that a prefix it hands out is globally routable? ` Or is that just an implied aspect of the term "lease", which is not in use these days? --bill
Over here, a lease implies that it's RIPE NCC's job to make sure that the prefix is and remains in usable shape for its intended purpose (globally routeable, not blacklisted etc.).
does RIPE NCC -really- provide assurance that a prefix it hands out is globally routable?
At least for PI space, they explicitly say they don't. (Of course, this doesn't completely rule out that an implied guarantee exists nevertheless.)
` Or is that just an implied aspect of the term "lease", which is not in use these days?
Yes, it's a mandatory part of the contract, the leaser cannot abstain from that. You've got some wiggle room with regard to the scope of the contract. But a lease of something that provides no documented value (and the contract explicitly saying so!) will be a very difficult sell to various parties. It borders on breach of trust ("Untreue", embezzlement in extreme cases). The current model of industry self-governance does not seem to suffer from that.
On Tue, Mar 25, 2008 at 06:19:03PM +0000, bmanning@vacation.karoshi.com wrote:
Over here, a lease implies that it's RIPE NCC's job to make sure that the prefix is and remains in usable shape for its intended purpose (globally routeable, not blacklisted etc.).
does RIPE NCC -really- provide assurance that a prefix it hands out is globally routable?
Quite the opposite. I think all the RIRs have a consistent stance here: "caveat emptor". (Well, not "emptor" because they claim one does not buy address space, but I think I've discussed that...) OTOH, in my experience the RIRs do *care* about their members' problems. They do help people who are getting filtered inappropriately with efforts to get filters removed. And the RIPE NCC runs the "de-bogonising" effort: http://www.ris.ripe.net/debogon/ I think this is all as it should be. On the Internet, we find that if you place the cost and the benefit at the same place, things get solved. So the LIR that gets the space must "clean up" the space (cost), but then can use it for whatever cool Internet things it wants (benefit). Having the RIRs take responsibility breaks the cost/benefit connection, so they will spend more than some LIR need, and less than others on the effort. -- Shane
If the wording in RIPE stated the word "lease", why wouldn't that work? A customer comes and "leases" IP space from RIPE for the duration of their contract with RIPE (membership dues, fulfillment of rules, etc.) When their membership ends, the lease is broken and the IP space returns to RIPE.
People are talking about direct LIR to LIR transfers where the IPv4 space does not return to RIPE.
I bring your attention to: http://www.ripe.net/rs/news/global-ipv6-assign-2001-12-22.html
4.1. Address space not to be considered property
The transfer policies under discussion are for IPv4 only, not IPv6. By the way, I agree that the best way to handle IPv4 transfers is for LIRs to return surplus address space to RIPE and for RIPE to allocate/assign those blocks in the normal way. The only real change needed is to add some kind of first-come first-served rule in case the demand for IPv4 is higher than the supply. --Michael Dillon
participants (6)
-
bmanning＠vacation.karoshi.com -
Florian Weimer -
Hank Nussbacher -
michael.dillon＠bt.com -
Nick Hilliard -
Shane Kerr