Hi Ray,
Firstly, thanks for taking the time to read through this proposal.
On 20/01/2009, at 3:32 AM, Ray Plzak wrote:
Some questions regarding this proposal.
- What is the involvement of the "another RIR" in this process with
regard to IP address space issued by this RIR.
a. Must or should this "another RIR" region have a policy in
place to allow such transfers?
yes, - the policy explicitly requires that the eligibility criteria of
the "other" RIR or NiR,. This is not possible in the case where there
is no such matching policy in place in this other body. So the intent
was that this would match with another RIR or NIR only when and if the
other RIR also had a policy in place to allow such transfers, and only
in those cases where the proposed transfer met such criteria
established by such a policy.
b. As this policy indicates a gain in fees for APNIC, there
would a corresponding loss of fees for the "another RIR". Should
this policy acknowledge that this RIR can or should assess a
transfer fee as this policy allows APNIC to do for address space
leaving its region.
The wording relating to fees is "may" and is a restatement of the
powers of the APNIC Executive Council to set fees, The policy itself
does not propose the setting of fees per se, as this is properly a
matter for the APNIC Executive Council.
The fees levied by the "other" RIR or NIR is quite properly within
their domain, and would be a fee levied on their member or serviced
entity, and would not directly relate to APNIC nor directly to the
APNIC member, as I understand it.
How does this policy apply to legacy address space.
a. What about legacy address space where there is no
relationship between the address space holder and the "another RIR"?
I'm afraid that I do not understand this question. Perhaps some
examples may help me understand the scenario you have in mind here.
b. What about legacy address space where there is a
relationship between the address space holder and the "another RIR"?
I think that once again I'm confused.
c. The same two questions (2a and 2b) but as applied to APNIC.
sorry - I'm no better off!
I don't understand the concept here of "[no] relationship between the
address space holder and the "another RIR"", so if you could explain
this in a little more detail I would perhaps be able to explain the
intent of the proposal from the perspective of the proposal's author.
regards,
Geoff