Address transfer process
====
prop-050 states:
The proposal does not:
- Prescribe how such transfers may occur, nor
- Impose any further constraints on the transfer or on the parties
involved.
There is no equivalent in prop-067.
Commentary from me:
This section wasn't in the two previous drafts of prop-050. I believe we
should take this section at its word and drop the section describing
"The address transfer process". This is an operational issue and should
be left to APNIC staff to handle.
Fees
====
prop-050 states:
Transfer fees:
APNIC may charge the recipient a service fee on the transfer
transaction. The transfer service fee may vary according to the
total size of the address block being transferred.
The transfer fee schedule shall be set initially by the APNIC
Executive Council upon adoption of this policy. The transfer fee
schedule will be included as part of any future review of APNIC
fees and charges.
There is no equivalent in prop-067.
Commentary from me:
It seems to me that this is where the fundamental difference between the
two proposals lies and where change/compromise is needed although it's
important to note that prop-050 says that "APNIC may charge" and that
this is not a requirement.
Clearly APNIC will incur costs in implementing these transfers but there
seems to be a conflict between the existing policy for addresses
allocated from the current free pool and addresses potentially obtained
under the proposed transfer policy.
The current 2008 membership fees and payment information
(http://www.apnic.net/member/feesinfo.html) talks about:
IP resource application fee
A member's first address allocation request is subject to a
non-refundable IP resource application fee of AU$3,169.
Subsequent allocations are free of charges.
I'm struggling to see why any additional fee is warranted. The cost to a
current member (which we've already required) should be the same
regardless of the source of the addresses. APNIC's work in the transfer
scenario is the equivalent of the accepting a return of an unused block
from a member and checking out an application from another member for a
block of the same size. Clearly if the recipient has never been
allocated a block of addresses the initial IP resource application fee
applies as part of the standard APNIC fee structure.
Other thoughts
====
So what about Section 5, Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal?
I think Section 5.1, Advantages in both prop-050 and prop-067 say pretty
much the same thing.
The Disadvantages section of prop-050 has had eighteen months to evolve
and while prop-063 claims there are no disadvantages to that proposal,
the points raised in prop-050 could equally be applied to prop-063.
Where to from here?
====
I'd like to see four things happen:
1) I'd like the authors of prop-050 and prop-063 to look at each others
proposal and discuss with each other and the rest of us on this list the
things they can agree on which could be in a unified proposal.
2) If there are fundamental differences in what they want to see happen
then if they can identify those then that would help this community see
what needs to be worked on.
3) If we can get the above points sorted out, are there members in the
community who have other views that they want considered before Manila?
4) Try to table a document that synthesizes that consensus at APNIC 27.
