Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
I miss you here in Bali by the way.
I think Paul will introduce your comment in front of APNIC
community.
I agree that Legal implication should be carefully revisited.
I think the Internet Registries who distribute the IP number
resource cannot be helped to comply to the run-out of our
resource. I would like to have your ider if you had a
diffent perspective on this idea.
I think the legal implication with any address policy action
should be resolved by the Registries. Even if the community
were advised of such a legal risk, the community at most can
take it into account in the framework of their own businesses,
but not of Registries. (Correct me if you think I am in a wrong
shape.)
The proposer team would really love to find a good solution to
confront this forthcoming epoch. We do need your cooperation
and we are flexible enough to include any of your inputs
regardless technically or at large, in order to achieve OUR
goal.
Thank you, and keep in touch on this issue.
Regards,
-----
MAEMURA Akinori General Manager, IP Department
JPNIC - Japan Network Information Center maem at nic dot ad dot jp
In message <D7E170CA59F2F24EA64244745D01E75904E04D5C@ex.arin.net>
"RE: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal"
"Ray Plzak <plzak at arin dot net>" wrote:
| This policy proposal has now been introduced into the ARIN region.
| I will not speak to the merits of this proposal, but will ask the
| question that the ARIN General Counsel is now taking up: What is
| the liability exposure to ARIN if this policy is adopted? What are
| the anti-trust implications if this is adopted by ARIN? Additionally,
| the attorneys of all the RIRs should consider what is the anti-trust
| implication of this proposal if adopted globally? I do not intend
| for this to start a legal discussion on this list by a bunch of people
| who are not attorneys but rather to say that this proposal like any
| other proposal can have consequences that the authors of the proposal
| do not intend. In the case of the anti-trust implications, this could
| be extremely harmful to any RIR that adopts it, and therefore this
| should be carefully scrutinized by competent attorneys before the
| community adopts it.
|
| By this message, I ask Paul Wilson to introduce my comments into the
| discussion of this policy at the APNIC meeting.
|
| Ray
|
| > -----Original Message-----
| > From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-
| > bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Takashi Arano
| > Sent: Wednesday, February 28, 2007 12:55 AM
| > To: Robert Gray
| > Cc: sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net; Takashi Arano; Takashi Arano
| > Subject: Re: [sig-policy] IPv4 countdown policy proposal
| >
| > Hi Robert,
| >
| > At 04:51 07/02/28, Robert Gray wrote:
| > >>IPv4 exhaustion gives negative impact, more or less.
| > >>The issue here is how to reduce the pain. As Randy said, choice of
| > short sharp pain or long-term pain well describes this issue.
| > >
| > >Arano-san
| > >
| > >I'm not sure that the choice is this simple.
| > >
| > >The community needs to promote a progressive global deployment of IPv6
| > and this needs to start very soon otherwise there will be no ability to
| > transition when the time (however defined) comes.
| > >
| > >I do not think that the imposition of arbitrary exhaustion dates will
| > of itself be sufficient to make this happen.
| >
| > Our intention is not to impose something.
| > This is intended to guarantee LIRs to get IPv4 addresses by the
| > specific date pre-announced.
| > As a result, x-date would be shorten just by one a few months.
| > We believe it is useful and necessary for LIR/ISP's planning division.
| >
| > >>Anyway, time proceeds. We have to confront this issue seriously
| > >>and as soon as possible.
| > >
| > >Here we agree 100%
| > >
| > >The difference in approach seems to be that some of us would like to
| > see more action taken sooner to specifically promote IPv6 deployment
| > rather than concentrating solely on what happens until x-date
| >
| > Yes, on different hats of mine, the IPv6 forum and Asia Pacific IPv6
| > Task Force
| > are going to promote IPv6 and provide some guidelines for ISPs more
| > seriously than ever.
| >
| > Regards,
| > Takashi Arano
| >
| > * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
| > *
| > _______________________________________________
| > sig-policy mailing list
| > sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
| > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
|
| * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy *
| _______________________________________________
| sig-policy mailing list
| sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
| http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
|
|