Dear Terence,
I agree with you that address transfer has several impacts and issues,
so we need to have safeguards for them as much as possible.
On the other hand, you said "it's not a timing to start address transfer" in your original e-mail.
I cannot agree with you about this point and I think a timing should be now.
Certainly, address transfer has several impacts and issues.
However, we should also pay attention that more unawared issues may appear after allowing address transfer
even though some of them are already pointed out. Since we have not yet experienced the world which allows
address transfer, I think it is impossible to list up all impacts and all issues at this stage.
If we could not start it until resolving all issues, I'm afraid it would become "chicken-egg problem" and we never could start it.
If NIRs have concerns for address transfer and don't want to implement it immediately, it is also practical way for NIRs
to allow it only between APNIC direct account holder, get more experiences from it and feedback them to NIRs, I believe.
Best rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
Softbank BB Corp.
-----Original Message-----
From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net
[mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of
Terence Zhang Yinghao
Sent: Monday, March 23, 2009 9:03 PM
To: Seiichi Kawamura; Skeeve Stevens
Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
Seiichi/Steeve,
Although we may have different view, may be just defferent
explanation ,
I think we have the same concern: 'safeguard that REALLY works',
which should be an integrated part of the proposal.
Regards
Terence
----- Original Message -----
From: "Seiichi Kawamura" kawamucho@msa.biglobe.ne.jp
To: "Leo Vegoda" leo.vegoda@icann.org
Cc: "Terence Zhang Yinghao" zhangyinghao@cnnic.cn;
sig-policy@apnic.net
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
Hello Terence,
While I do understand your worries, I must comment agasint
some of your opinions. Please exucse me for my rudeness.
of tranfer and attaches a potential 'value' to IP addresses,
which may attract some businesses to apply for more IP addresses
than their actual need, there for speed up the IPv4 addresses
consumption.
Unfortunately, the coundown of /8's is recognized by many
and the implicit value is already rising. That's what I feel
as a member of an NIR. I would like to know what other NIR
members feel.
More to the point, I feel that policies deal with transfer
will be easily involved with financial and even legal issues,
and to address those issues may be very complex.
I think the Internet is already full of financial and legal issues
today. Its a part of daily life in an ISP. Heck! We pay
money to JPNIC
yearly, and that's already a financial and legal issue itself!
How about domains? Isn't it a miracle that its still working? :-)
What we need to focus on now, (let me borrow Skeeve's words
here) is safeguard
that REALLY works, or think really works. We also need to
think about
deployment of technological ways of ensuring an IP address
integrity as well
(just as Randy noted in a previous mail).
we should encourage
getting address through regular channel and returning address
to RIR when it's no longer in use.
There's still time to work on this, but
if encouraging were to make things dramatically better,
we woudn't be talking about prop-050 right now.
Regards,
Seiichi
policy *
_______________________________________________
sig-policy mailing list
sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
