who distributes IP addresses

There is a part of the internet that we almost never see and, precisely for that reason, we tend to take it for granted. We are not talking about websites, applications or large data centers, but about the numbers that allow some networks to find others without stepping on each other’s ground. This silent administration is one of the reasons why the Internet functions as a common network and not as a sum of incompatible systems. When that layer comes into dispute, what is discussed is quite delicate.

The movement. Malaysia has put on the table a legal reform that aims directly at that basic layer of the network. A public consultation has proposed giving MCMC, the country’s communications regulator, legal authority to manage and administer electronic addressing resources, including IP addresses, AS numbers and associated fees. The proposal also opens the door to developing a National Internet Registry for Malaysia.

The invisible cloak. As we say, here we are not talking about domains, but about the numbering that supports the routing of the Internet. An IP address identifies a resource within the network; An AS number identifies an autonomous network, for example that of an operator or a large supplier, that exchanges routes with other networks. It is a technical distinction, yes, but with a very concrete consequence: these resources cannot depend on rules that contradict each other. Their value lies precisely in the fact that everyone recognizes them under a common system.

This system does not depend, under normal conditions, on each State separately. The current model is supported by five regional Internet registries, known as RIRs, which manage the distribution of IP addresses and AS numbers in different areas of the world. APNIC is the record corresponding to Asia-Pacific, while ARIN covers North America and part of the Caribbean, LACNIC Latin America and the Caribbean, RIPE NCC Europe, the Middle East and part of Central Asia, and AFRINIC Africa. The logic is to prevent a global infrastructure from being divided into incompatible national decisions.

The national precedent. There are economies that already have a National Internet Registry, but that does not mean that any country can create one whenever it wants. In the APNIC region there are seven recognized cases, associated with China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam. The difference is that those records come from a previous stagewhen some national structures already existed or were being formed before the regional model was consolidated. That is why the Malaysian proposal does not start from scratch, but it does collide with a door that APNIC considers closed for years.

APNIC maintains that that door is closed for a specific reason. In 2012 it stopped accepting new applications to create National Internet Registries and, in February 2024, made that moratorium permanent. It also removed the old framework that was used to evaluate new NIRs, so that today there is no current procedure to recognize another national registry in the region. In its correspondence with the MCMC, APNIC insists on this point: it cannot process a Malaysian application under a model that it considers outdated.

Malaysian reading. From the regulator’s side, the argument involves updating a standard born in 1998, before the digital economy had its current weight. The consultation proposes giving MCMC clearer authority over the administration of electronic addressing resources and the fees linked to that management. APNIC also states in its correspondence that MCMC has advocated for more local control over assignments, easier access to resources, and a push toward IPv6. The official approach aims to organize and reinforce this administration, although the scope of that control is precisely what opens the dispute.

The delicate thing is the precedent. A National Internet Registry with more autonomy than anticipated by APNIC would not only affect Malaysia, it would also send a signal to other governments interested in managing from home resources that until now are coordinated regionally. The Register notes thatif a Malaysian NIR were to take over part of APNIC’s functions, it could reopen the debate on the role of governments in allocating internet resources. The political concern exists, but it should be formulated carefully: the risk is not in what the consultation claims to do, but in the power that could be concentrated if that model is expanded.

We are not, therefore, facing a fight over a website, an application or a specific platform. The dispute goes down to a much more basic layer: who manages the numbering that allows the Internet to continue functioning as a shared network. If Malaysia insists on moving towards a National Internet Registry, the clash with APNIC does not have to be loud at first.

Images | Xataka with Nano Banana

In Xataka | For some reason, people keep throwing messages in a bottle into the sea. And a man has specialized in collecting them