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
