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