On Aug 23, 2011, at 2:57 PM, Andy Linton wrote:
On 3/08/11 Wed, Aug 3, 07:33, Andy Linton wrote:
Dear SIG members
The proposal "prop-096 Maintaining demonstrated needs requirement in
transfer policy after the final /8 phase" will not be considered for
consensus at the Policy SIG during APNIC 32 in Busan, Korea, Sunday, 28
August until Thursday, 1 September 2011.
The author believes it is appropriate to wait until the situation
surrounding resource transfers becomes clearer in other RIRs.
Information about this and other policy proposals is available from:
http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals
I've been asked whether we should discuss this issue in Busan. There are
things happening on the ARIN PPML list and in other forums that make it
relevant for us to consider this at our meeting next week.
I've decided that it is appropriate to do this and so we'll add this to
the agenda. I'll get the Secretariat to amend the list to include this item.
This is a significant issue that threatens to stop us reaching consensus
on prop-097: Global Policy for post exhaustion IPv4 allocation
mechanisms by the IANA (http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-097)
I appreciate that this means that the opportunity for discussion on this
list is shorter than would normally be the case but the proposal has
been available since the start of 2011.
If people on the list need more time to consider this we can use the
list after the meeting during the last call period to discuss this
further if we manage to reach consensus in Busan.
Thanks, Andy!!
I would like to see this proposal reach consensus in the APNIC region
and I hope other members of the community will join me in supporting
it. APNIC enacting this policy will make it much more likely and much
easier to gain consensus for various inter-regional proposals in the ARIN
region.
A major sticking point in all of the discussions in the ARIN region for any
proposal that relinquishes control over resources out of the ARIN region
is that there is one (and only one) RIR that has abandoned the needs-basis
for address transfers. There is much concern expressed about the transfer
of resources into a region which does not maintain a needs-basis policy
and this has prevented consensus on several proposals already.
I believe that there are several organizations in the APNIC region that
could benefit from the ability to transfer addresses in from other regions
and that policy supporting those transfers would be forthcoming if APNIC
were to reinstate needs-basis in the transfer policy.
Owen
(Speaking as myself and in my role representing Hurricane Electric,
an APNIC Member organization. Not speaking for or on behalf of
ARIN or the ARIN Advisory Council.)
