Keyboard Shortcuts
Thread View
j
: Next unread messagek
: Previous unread messagej a
: Jump to all threadsj l
: Jump to MailingList overview

[sig-policy] Open Request Regarding Address Transfer Policy Proposals
An open request to the Chair of the Policy SIG:
Dear Chair,
There has been much discussion over the past few days, and during which it has become evident to me that: - prop-050, prop-067 and prop-068 do substantially overlap each other in general intent - There are several sub-proposals beneath the general concept of address transfers that require their own debate and consensus to properly represent the views of the membership - The proposals as written are unlikely to completely reflect the consensus position on all of the sub-proposals involved
I therefore believe that it is in the interests of the APNIC community to debate the individual sub-proposals that have been raised (rather than simply voting on the existing proposals as written) and so I would propose that, if this were amenable to the relevant authors, the SIG workshop at next week's meeting should be structured to seek the consensus on each of these individual points.
I believe that the relevant sub-proposals are that:
1. Address transfers should be permitted between APNIC members
2. Address transfers should be permitted between APNIC members and NIR members - (If meeting relevant NIR policies)
3. Address transfers should be permitted between APNIC members and members of other RIRs -(If meeting relevant other RIR policies)
4. The minimum permissible size of a sub-transfer of an APNIC address block should be EITHER a /24 OR minimum APNIC policy size - (To be decided)
5. Address transfers should be justified to and scrutinised by APNIC
6. Address transfers should EITHER be enabled immediately, OR only enabled after particular criteria have been met - For example, once APNIC has reached its last /8 - (To be decided)
7. APNIC should maintain a public log of the allocation history of an address
8. APNIC members transferring address blocks to others should not be eligible to receive additional address blocks for at least two years.
Please note that these sub-policies have already been proposed in the submitted policies, so I believe that the membership has been given the time period required to consider and debate these sub-proposals at the SIG meeting.
I welcome your feedback, and the feedback of other list members, as to whether this approach is feasible and whether it would assist in simplifying the debate and in obtaining a clearer direction from the members on these issues.
Regards,
David Woodgate

hi david,
< chair hat = on >
I therefore believe that it is in the interests of the APNIC community to debate the individual sub-proposals that have been raised (rather than simply voting on the existing proposals as written)
i am in complete agreement, though have not heard from jian on this.
the SIG workshop at next week's meeting should be structured to seek the consensus on each of these individual points.
that is what i have been suggesting and is the agenda awaiting agreement among the chairs.
I believe that the relevant sub-proposals are that:
Address transfers should be permitted between APNIC members
Address transfers should be permitted between APNIC members and NIR members
- (If meeting relevant NIR policies)
Address transfers should be permitted between APNIC members and
members of other RIRs -(If meeting relevant other RIR policies)
- The minimum permissible size of a sub-transfer of an APNIC address
block should be EITHER a /24 OR minimum APNIC policy size
- (To be decided)
Address transfers should be justified to and scrutinised by APNIC
Address transfers should EITHER be enabled immediately, OR only
enabled after particular criteria have been met
- For example, once APNIC has reached its last /8
- (To be decided)
APNIC should maintain a public log of the allocation history of an address
APNIC members transferring address blocks to others should not be
eligible to receive additional address blocks for at least two years.
looks good to me, though i might not nail down as much detail. i.e. 8 could be done with a time other than two years (as well as not done, obviously). but those are nits.
does anybody object to this approach?
randy

Thank you indeed for this very productive proposal David!
As the author of a couple of the proposals in this space I concur completely with this proposed approach to resolve these issues, and with this note I endorse your request to the Policy SIG chairs.
kind regards,
Geoff
On 19/02/2009, at 4:54 PM, David Woodgate wrote:
An open request to the Chair of the Policy SIG:
Dear Chair,
There has been much discussion over the past few days, and during which it has become evident to me that:
- prop-050, prop-067 and prop-068 do substantially overlap each other
in general intent
- There are several sub-proposals beneath the general concept of
address transfers that require their own debate and consensus to properly represent the views of the membership
- The proposals as written are unlikely to completely reflect the
consensus position on all of the sub-proposals involved
I therefore believe that it is in the interests of the APNIC community to debate the individual sub-proposals that have been raised (rather than simply voting on the existing proposals as written) and so I would propose that, if this were amenable to the relevant authors, the SIG workshop at next week's meeting should be structured to seek the consensus on each of these individual points.
I believe that the relevant sub-proposals are that:
Address transfers should be permitted between APNIC members
Address transfers should be permitted between APNIC members and
NIR members
- (If meeting relevant NIR policies)
- Address transfers should be permitted between APNIC members and
members of other RIRs -(If meeting relevant other RIR policies)
- The minimum permissible size of a sub-transfer of an APNIC address
block should be EITHER a /24 OR minimum APNIC policy size
- (To be decided)
Address transfers should be justified to and scrutinised by APNIC
Address transfers should EITHER be enabled immediately, OR only
enabled after particular criteria have been met
- For example, once APNIC has reached its last /8
- (To be decided)
- APNIC should maintain a public log of the allocation history of
an address
- APNIC members transferring address blocks to others should not be
eligible to receive additional address blocks for at least two years.
Please note that these sub-policies have already been proposed in the submitted policies, so I believe that the membership has been given the time period required to consider and debate these sub-proposals at the SIG meeting.
I welcome your feedback, and the feedback of other list members, as to whether this approach is feasible and whether it would assist in simplifying the debate and in obtaining a clearer direction from the members on these issues.
Regards,
David Woodgate
sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
policy * _______________________________________________ sig-policy mailing list sig-policy@lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy

I also support David Woodgate's excellent proposal as a useful way to combine current efforts to get the policy development on Address Transfer moving. If we can come up agreements on these points then policies can be crafted which the community can reach a useful consensus on.
Regards andy

David,
I'm more than comfortable with this collaborative approach, and if a new policy proposal that is the amalgam of the preceding work is the agreed result - all the better.
If I can ask the chairs to clearly signpost the items during discussion, i would be most appreciative as I'll be following remotely.
a few points in-line.
On 19/02/2009, at 3:54 PM, David Woodgate wrote:
I believe that the relevant sub-proposals are that:
1-3 no contention.
- The minimum permissible size of a sub-transfer of an APNIC address
block should be EITHER a /24 OR minimum APNIC policy size
- (To be decided)
- That satisfies the rules of the receiver's *IR policies.
- Address transfers should be justified to and scrutinised by APNIC
Sorry to quibble over wording, but this is probably a little terse. I think just so long as it satisfies APNIC policy and membership status.
- Address transfers should EITHER be enabled immediately, OR only
enabled after particular criteria have been met
- For example, once APNIC has reached its last /8
- (To be decided)
That reminds me, James - what specifically are your concerns that may lead to a detrimental impact on the community?
- APNIC should maintain a public log of the allocation history of
an address
- APNIC members transferring address blocks to others should not be
eligible to receive additional address blocks for at least two years.
I don't think I would be prescriptive with the time frame at this juncture. (ie could be any scale from 6 months to 10 years)
Cheers Terry

Hi Terry,
[snip]
- Address transfers should EITHER be enabled immediately, OR only
enabled after particular criteria have been met
- For example, once APNIC has reached its last /8
- (To be decided)
That reminds me, James - what specifically are your concerns that may lead to a detrimental impact on the community?
My feeling is that defining a value to a commodity by opening a market while that commodity is still incredibly subsidized via an official process, is a bad thing.
I'll draw the comparison to the final years (and fall) of the Soviet Union, the government always kept prices artificially low, which was fine, but when markets and trading were permitted (or at least a blind eye was turned), it created the situation of mass shortages of goods. People could buy them at the government subsidized prices, sell them on the local market or internationally (if they were brave) and the end result was that supply of subsidized goods all but dried up and people that actually wanted/needed them couldn't get them.
If an open a market for address space exists while we are still allocating subsidized resources this is bound to create illegitimate demand, stockpiling and speculation.
I personally can't see a legitimate reason for my business to buy resource via a transfer if APNIC is still allocating address space. I'm open to hear from others who can ?
In conclusion, it seems the most prudent course of action is to create the market when it is actually needed and when the side effects of such a market will no longer be of importance.
Cheers,
-- James (who often checks ebay for the mythological /24s for sale, but never seen one)

Hi James,
On 20/02/2009, at 10:17 AM, James Spenceley wrote:
That reminds me, James - what specifically are your concerns that may lead to a detrimental impact on the community?
My feeling is that defining a value to a commodity by opening a market while that commodity is still incredibly subsidized via an official process, is a bad thing.
I'll draw the comparison to the final years (and fall) of the Soviet Union, the government always kept prices artificially low, which was fine, but when markets and trading were permitted (or at least a blind eye was turned), it created the situation of mass shortages of goods. People could buy them at the government subsidized prices, sell them on the local market or internationally (if they were brave) and the end result was that supply of subsidized goods all but dried up and people that actually wanted/needed them couldn't get them.
The problem I see with the comparison is that APNIC is probably not going to turn a blind eye.
So the trading market won't exactly be devoid of process and review.
If an open a market for address space exists while we are still allocating subsidized resources this is bound to create illegitimate demand, stockpiling and speculation.
I see you point. I also had another thought in that right now (i'm told) we have huge globs of unused addresses sitting in some organisations with little or no incentive for them to return them. I wonder if a trading market, which then provides a monetary incentive, might help entice some of those poorly utilised resources out of the technical-cupboards and back into useful circulation.
I personally can't see a legitimate reason for my business to buy resource via a transfer if APNIC is still allocating address space. I'm open to hear from others who can ?
While ipv6 proponents will flay me alive for this: To extend the useful life of v4.
In conclusion, it seems the most prudent course of action is to create the market when it is actually needed and when the side effects of such a market will no longer be of importance.
I guess I'm apathetic on this. Enacted at some future time, or enacted now - I see both pros and cons.
Terry
Activity Summary
- 5102 days inactive
- 5102 days old
- sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
- 6 participants
- 6 comments