<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
</head>
<body>
<p>What bylaws have to do with rules about IP space usage resources
? Why does it keep been mentioned as something that can allow or
disallow resource usage in or out of the region ? Please stop
creating more confusion.<br>
The rules the apply are ONLY what are the CPM and are made by the
community in a bottom up process. Bylaws are not made in a bottom
up process but by members only, so let´s just not use bylaws as a
justification for this topic. Bylaws can only regulate membership.<br>
</p>
<p>Also please note that LACNIC goes in the same line than AfriNic
about resource utilization out of the region. This was already
confirmed by the RIR and some of its NIR staff as their
understanding. This makes sense and goes in line with RIRs that
simply didn't choose to go in the path of total liberalization
because that is of the interest of a few specific companies who
started to profit from the IPv4 exhaustion.<br>
</p>
<p>Now we have to believe in the fallacy that addressed were not
distributed to RIRs in blocks and that RIRs have specifics rules
made by specific communities with different needs just because of
time-zones and convenience. If it was so simple to justify
resources to be used anywhere there would be a global pool and
global policies. Why then a global policy years ago was put in
place to allocate a /8 to each RIR individually ? Following that
logic this wouldn't be necessary.<br>
What is wrong with "protectionist mentality" ? It is better to
assure resources as used for what they have always been meant to
be than they are free for speculation and missusage bringing not
Internet benefits, social and economic benefits to the region.<br>
</p>
<p>It is very fair to hold resources in other they can be used for
what they meant to be, and in/for the region, so for thrid-part
companies come, establish a legal local company, get addresses
from the RIR and lease it to some other organization from another
region that according to the rules of their RIR are not allowed to
get more IPv4 addresses in a clear way to circumvent the rules in
place. The situation is the same for all, rules must apply equally
so let's abide to them equally, not with beautiful words to try
make wrong things right.</p>
<p>Fernando<br>
</p>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Em 6/29/2021 6:01 AM, Owen DeLong
escreveu:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:852F78AE-B319-4207-BAFA-1131040B02A7@delong.com">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<br class="">
<div><br class="">
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">On Jun 26, 2021, at 18:53 , Fernando Frediani
<<a href="mailto:fhfrediani@gmail.com" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">fhfrediani@gmail.com</a>> wrote:</div>
<br class="Apple-interchange-newline">
<div class="">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html;
charset=UTF-8" class="">
<div class="">
<p class="">In the recent times as IPv4 exhaustion
advances it's becoming more and more common to see
defenses for a total liberalization in a "no rules
scenario" of IP space regulation using nice words as
"new economic, technical, and legal realities".</p>
<p class="">The reality is that that most benefited from
that are only a few companies who financially benefit
during these difficult times, regardless of things like
fairness and economic and social development of a
region. These actors know the value of this market will
have its peak and then will start to come back down, so
it is somehow understandable the pressure we have been
seen to try to make some absurds like IP leasing to
non-connectivity customers or use out of the region as
something "normal and acceptable".</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Regardless of who does and does not benefit, the reality is that
short of an actual government with the ability to enforce its
rules using guns and prisons, people who can make a profit are
going to do what they are going to do. I’m not particularly
happy about this reality, but I do recognize that it is, in
fact, reality and I’m not in favor of giving RIRs guns or the
ability to incarcerate people. Contracts only get you so far and
clever people can always find ways to comply with the letter of
a contract while circumventing the other party's intent if they
want to try hard enough.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>So no, these are not “nice words”, they are the recognition
of unpleasant and inconvenient truths that like it or not, we
are faced with new realities, economic, technical, and legal.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>In many countries legal frameworks the lack of a transfer
policy allowing registrants to monetize the transfer of their
registrations could be considered either restraint of trade or
an anti-trust/anti-competitive matter.</div>
<div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class="">It is not by chance that some RIRs Community
have chosen that majority of addresses must be used
within in the region and the impacts it has on the
social and economics of that region. It is a loss when
every new company or entrepreneurship struggles to
launch a new business due to the lack of addresses in
the region that were taken way to be used elsewhere and
these type of situations cannot simply be taken as "new
economic, technical, and legal realities". In those
scenarios where only a few actors earn their chunk of
money regardless the losses to the region such movements
can't be accept as something natural.<br class="">
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Which RIRs communities would that be? I believe you can
only point to one RIR that actually has such a policy on the
books.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Further, there is no lack of IP addresses, only a lack of
IPv4 addresses. That is the new technical reality and the
sooner we face that head on, the better off we will all be.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Addresses were never distributed to RIRs with the intent
for those addresses to be regionally restricted. Instead, RIRs
were created for the purposes of providing convenience in
terms of time-zones, the manageability of a policy forum for
the community, and to some extent language support.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>This protectionist mentality about regional restrictions on
addresses is a very recent phenomenon.</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class=""> </p>
<p class="">It was probably in the line of "new economic,
technical, and legal realities" the some RIRs didn't
choose to have soft landing phases which certainly leads
to a significant unfairness to newcomers and new
business coming up and also to a higher market
concentration. Fortunately for the less
economic-developed regions in the world (LACNIC and
AfriNic) this didn't happen and this discourse of "new
economic, technical, and legal realities" was not
predominant.<br class="">
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<div>Again, to the best of my knowledge, there’s only one RIR
that chose not to have a soft landing policy.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>How is it fair to hold addresses that are needed for use to
day in reserve for an unknown possible future need that may or
may not come to fruition before the protocol is rendered
obsolete? That’s neither fair to existing organizations, nor
is it the best use of resources to keep them on the shelf.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Until very recently, within the ambit of legitimate need,
internet resources (names and numbers) have been issued on a
first-come-first-served basis. WIPO eventually managed to
corrupt this in the names arena by creating a tragic
juxtaposition of trademarks and domain names (which is
incredibly poor because of the realities of trademarks being
multiple overlapping namespaces while any given TLD is a
single namespace). The classic example is that for decades,
Apple Computer (founded 1976) and Apple Records (founded by
the Beatles in 1968. In the trademark realm, because there is
no likely confusion (at the time) between a Record Label and a
Computer Manufacturer, the two uses of the same name did not
conflict. Try that with <a href="http://Apple.com" class=""
moz-do-not-send="true">Apple.com</a> (which went to the
computer company entirely because of first-come first-served
rules, but which under the messy IANA processes can’t be
subsequently claimed by Apple Records in a trademark dispute
because both trademarks legitimately hold the name.</div>
<blockquote type="cite" class="">
<div class="">
<div class="">
<p class=""> </p>
<p class="">During the first discussions of Inter-RIR
transfer policy, while AfriNic was still on Phase 1 of
the soft landing we could see a big concern of several
people about possibility of IP space be simply stolen
from Africa and I believe that is still a concern of
many and I doubt that these many would find it normal
things like out of region usage or IP leasing.</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
Yet neither of those things is against current policy if one
applies a plain text reading of the rules. Indeed, it would take
incredible effort to contort the rules to claim they prohibit
out of region use. OTOH, given that nearly every single LIR in
every single RIR engages in some form of IP Leasing, I think
it’s very difficult to claim that this is either prohibited by
policy or abnormal.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>If you think that they are against policy, please point to
the appropriate and relevant sections of the CPM, RSA, or
bylaws.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Wishing does not make it so. If you don’t want those things
to be considered normal, then either point to the section of
policy that prohibits them, or draft a policy proposal and try
to get it to consensus.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Until then, please re-read the CPM, RSA, and bylaws with a
critical eye considering the plain-text meaning of the documents
and consider what they actually say instead of what you wish
they said or think they should have said or think the community
wants.</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
<div>Owen</div>
<div><br class="">
</div>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>