Malaysia Proposes National Control of IP Address Management
The Malaysian Communications and Multimedia Commission (MCMC) is consulting on the creation of a statutory authority to manage IP addresses and autonomous system (AS) numbers. This move, aimed at establishing a National Internet Registry (NIR), faces opposition from the Asian Pacific Network Information Center (APNIC), which has permanently banned new NIR applications as of 2024.
Why is Malaysia seeking a National Internet Registry?
The MCMC began this consultation in June, arguing that the 1998 Act governing its activities requires an update to reflect current digital needs. According to a MCMC consultation paper, the government wants a statutory authority capable of managing electronic addressing and associated fees.
The commission states that a National Internet Registry model would ensure “transparent and sustainable administration” of these resources. MCMC officials claim this transition will create a more robust and well-governed digital infrastructure environment within Malaysia.
Why does APNIC oppose the move?
APNIC, the regional internet registry (RIR) for the Asia-Pacific region, argues that internet resource management is most effective when handled at a regional scale. APNIC Executive Chair Kenny Huang stated that NIRs are a “historical feature” used when the internet was growing rapidly and IPv4 space needed urgent, local allocation.
APNIC stopped accepting new NIR applications in 2012 and made that moratorium permanent in 2024. The organization warns that granting individual nations full operational autonomy over resource assignments creates overlapping authorities and unnecessary risks. There is also a broader concern within the internet governance community that nationalizing IP allocation could allow governments to deny resources to political opponents.
Currently, only nine NIRs remain globally, located in:
- China
- India
- Indonesia
- Japan
- Korea
- Taiwan
- Vietnam
- Mexico
- Brazil
What is the current status of the dispute?
Kenny Huang has formally written to the MCMC, clarifying that creating a new NIR is not currently possible under existing APNIC policy. However, Huang noted that a policy change could be debated only after the completion of ICP-2, a major revision of the rules governing RIR operations. The current timeline for the revised ICP-2 document is the end of 2026.
If Malaysia proceeds with the statutory authority without APNIC’s cooperation, the two entities will be in direct conflict. This tension contradicts the multi-stakeholder governance model supported by the United Nations, which reaffirmed last year that governments should be one of many voices in internet governance rather than the sole authority.
Regional vs. National Registry Models
The conflict centers on two different philosophies of internet architecture:
| Feature | Regional Internet Registry (RIR) | National Internet Registry (NIR) |
|---|---|---|
| Scope | Large geographic regions (e.g., APNIC, LACNIC) | Single nation or economy |
| Governance | Multi-stakeholder, community-led | Often government-led or statutory |
| Current Trend | Standardized global model | Deprecated/Legacy model |
| Primary Goal | Global stability and neutrality | National autonomy and oversight |
What happens next?
The outcome depends on whether the MCMC accepts the 2026 timeline for policy debate or pushes for immediate statutory control. If Malaysia implements a national registry unilaterally, it may challenge the established status quo of global IP distribution. For now, the process remains in the consultation phase, with the global internet community watching for signs of a shift toward nationalized internet resource control.
Worth a look