Dean makes a good point here which may well hold in other cases.
Proposing policy changes really shouldn't be our first choice for
problem resolution. I see no reason why people shouldn't come to this
list with a problem statement such as the one Dean suggests:
For example, If a user were able to justify their needs for a two year
period, would the hostmasters support a transfer under the current
policies.
and asking the Secretariat for an opinion. This would allow others
with similar problems/questions to take part in discussions.
As Policy SIG Chair I'd be happy to help with such requests and I
suspect the Co-Chairs would as well.
Is we can't find a satisfactory solution this way then we can move to
more formal methods.
andy
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Dean Pemberton dean@deanpemberton.com wrote:
Good Afternoon,
A lot of this policy looks to compare the current APNIC situation with
that in other RIRs, I do not believe a difference in itself is a
reason to change policy. Just because it is done differently
elsewhere, while interesting, should not be a necessary and sufficient
condition for policy change within this region.
Therefore the justification for this policy really boils down to:
Furthermore, 12 months is also too short for transfers within the APNIC
region considering many xSPs plan their service and their addressing
requirements beyond one year.
As with prop-99. I'd like to ask Sanjaya, is there a way to
accomodate this situation under the current policies.
For example, If a user were able to justify their needs for a two year
period, would the hostmasters support a transfer under the current
policies.
We can then see if there appears to be a problem.
Kind Regards,
Dean
