Thank you Sanjaya for making that clear. 
For me this boils down to the following questions. 
1/ Is the current 12 month window sufficient?
2/ If not, what should a new window be? 24 months? 5years?

Clearly the proposal authors feel that the answers should be No and 24 months. I don't see the evidence to back this up however. 

I would be interested in hearing from the authors and other members on why the current period is insufficient and why 24 months would solve the problems. 


On Friday, August 3, 2012, Sanjaya wrote:
Hi Dean and all,

Transfer is essentially re-delegation process and the IPv4 policy is
quite specific in delegation size based on 1 year need:

"Based on these factors, APNIC and NIRs will delegate address space to
meet the LIR's estimated needs for a period up to one year up to the
maximum allowed delegation under Section 3. If APNIC or the NIR make a
delegation based on a period of less than one year, then they must
inform the LIR of the length of the period and the reasons for selecting

I don't see ways to accommodate prop-104 need without changing the
policy. The needs based transfer evaluation introduced by prop-096 must
have boundaries. Otherwise, as per Adam's latest post to the list,
people may come with a 15 year or 100 year planning window that would be
hard to decline.


On 31/07/2012 1:05 PM, Dean Pemberton 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
*              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management policy           *
sig-policy mailing list