Conclusions - Recovering Allocated but Unutilized Internet Resources at LACNIC
Ricardo Patara, LACNIC
Introductory document Presentation
Minutes
Marcelo Bagnulo. I believe that recovering resources is a valid initiative and that it must be done. However, I am concerned by the form that this policy assumes. It is necessary to consider how the resources were allocated and which policy was in force at the time of each allocation. We must be careful not to change the rules of the game. If a person acquires resources under one set of rules, we should not change these rules and recover the resources later.
Raúl Echeberría. Yes, the issue mentioned by Marcelo is a complex one. We should advance on those points that are not so complex. There is no policy to cover us and neither is there any procedure, so, what shall we do? What is important is not the amount of resources that are recovered; one of our responsibilities is ensuring equal opportunity for accessing resources. I suggest we discuss those situations that are simple and leave those that are complex for later on.
Christian O'Flaherty. An important part of this resource recovery process is to identify those that are not updated so we can all contribute to their updating.
Hartmut Glaser. Ricardo's presentation shows that 97% of the resources that are not updated and are not locatable are legacy resources. I believe we do not have up-to-date files. The data is quite old. I would like to ask Raul whether we could publish an announcement in Latin American newspapers stating that we wish to recover those resources and asking the persons involved that they state their position within 90 or 120 days. Use alternative mediums other than Internet. These resources do not belong to individuals; they belong to the community. In Brazil, newspaper announcements have legal value.
Raúl Echeberría. Yes, this can be done. Whatever the forum decides. This is what we are asking for: guidelines for the actions we should follow.
Marcelo Bagnulo. What are unutilized resources? Are they resources that are not published on BGP tables?
Ricardo Patara. The investigation that was carried out was based on the observation of the routing table during an entire year, separating only those blocks that were allocated to NAPs which we know are not published on the Internet. This was the procedure that was used. If the community decides that it is correct, we can adopt it as a definition for the term "unutilized" or "non-utilized."
Christian O'Flaherty. We must focus on those resources that are "lost," as there is no contact of any kind with the persons that have these resources.
Marcelo Bagnulo. The allocation policy should include the idea that resources that are not published are considered unutilized and therefore may be subject to recovery.
Erick Iriarte. Although the resource is not utilized there is the question of the possession of the resource. As long as it has not been allocated it belongs to the community, but after it is allocated, in order to recover it, it is necessary to cancel the corresponding contract. We must analyze the causes that can originate the recovery according to the contract that was in force when the resource was allocated. To explicitly state in the policy that if it is not utilized it is subject to recovery without violating contractual regulations.
Leslie Nobile. It is necessary to consider the fact that, even though resources may not be published, this does not mean that they are not utilized. In the region covered by ARIN, legacy blocks are being utilized as part of private networks.
Raúl Echeberría. There is no explicit policy that states that reallocations are made for private networks. From the policies it is inferred that they are to be used on the Internet, although this is not openly established either and may require some adjustments. In relation to Erick's comments, we have several cases, the case of legacy blocks, those organizations do not have any contract, these are allocations that were made many years before RIRs existed. We also have organizations that do have a contract, but one of the contractual obligations is membership renewal and, for this reason, in case the company disappears, there is a tacit understanding that the contract is breached. A third observation is that we must see how resources will be recovered, what the recovery procedure should be. As to the policies, the current contract establishes that the organization is obliged to comply with LACNIC's policies, that means that a change of policy for recovering resources would adhere current subscribers.
Erick Iriarte. The fact that there is no contract in the allocation of a legacy block does not mean that a contract does not exist. There is a contractual relationship because a service is being provided.
Enrique Díaz. In the specific case of Mexico, there is a concern with organizations dedicated to stock exchange activities that have legacy blocks. For example, the Mexican Stock Exchange and the National Bank require a private interconnection, but they also require public addressing for this connection. We are talking about private traffic exchange among different organizations. To what extent can the implementation of this policy affect the use of public addressing?
Marcelo Bagnulo. The idea is that these blocks are utilized, even if they are used in a private manner.
Christian O'Flaherty. The idea is to establish a list of resources of those organizations or contacts that can not be located by any means. If contact is established and the usage of the resources is dtermined then everything is fine.
Wilfried Woeber. How many blocks or resources do you expect to recover and what would be the impact on LACNIC's business? The effort that must be made will cost the members money. Considering the benefits that would be obtained through these efforts, is the resource recovery process worthwhile?
Germán Valdez. From LACNIC's perspective, there exists the responsibility of administering the Internet resource space allocated for Latin America and the Caribbean in a fair manner. Regardless of whether the amount of resources that may be recovered is important or not, the motivation of this policy is to fulfill the obligation of watching out for these resources. There is no motivation originated by the lack of available IP addresses or the benefits that could be obtained by the reallocation of these resources.
Raimundo Beca. We do not have a problem of lack of available IP addresses. Existing reserves are quite high. The possibility of recovery is low, the possibility of achieving a better usage of what is already allocated is higher. I would not be so tough as to recover these resources disregarding contractual matters. In addition, a situation similar to the current ccTLD situation could occur, that that a competitive situation could emerge in which some organizations would go "hunting" for the Internet Registry that has more permissive policies. I believe that this issue could be discussed within the NRO so as to have a common approach.
Christian O'Flaherty. We, the members of the community, are extremely interested in the fact that the information that exists on the WHOIS database be kept updated. For the Internet in general it is important that spammers do not use blocks about which they know that nobody will complain. Having up-to-date information should be sufficient motivation for this effort.
Arturo Zaldivar. In the case of our organization, we proceed to suspend the service. We wait for a period of 2 or 3 months. If there are no complaints, the resources are reallocated.
Germán Valdez. One way to continue this is to begin with less complex cases in which we can advance with greater speed. For example, APNIC monitored resources that had not been utilized for one year, made a follow-up of the individuals that were registered in the WHOIS database, trying to contact them periodically over the course of a one-year period. The process is long, but they are ensuring that the resources are not being utilized.
Conclusions
Christian O'Flaherty. A proposal will be drafted based on the discussions of the mailing list and the Public Forum. It will be sent to the mailing list in order to receive comments.
|
