[snip]
'Temporary' Transfers ---------------------
[snip]
The alternative, which I would like to proceed with in terms of this policy proposal, is for APNIC to treat ALL transfers as permanent from the perspective of the registry function. It would then be a matter for the two parties in the transfer to sort out via a bilateral contract between the two parties if they: - Agree that the transfer should be undone at some future date, and/ or- Agree that other constraints be placed on the transfer.
I'm glad to see these changes. I mentioned my concerns (in Taipei) that the concept of a Registry sanctioned temporary transfer process, creates the assumption of liability or more correctly a duty of care to resolve a dispute when the inevitable happens and a transferee refuses to stopping announcing the route/s. Making the period/type of transfer entirely an issue between the parties is a good thing.
It's really no business of the registry to enforce these kinds of caveats where the parties agree to some obligation or constraint.Whether the registry should record the existence of such caveats in the registry is a matter for future policy. Without any experience or real understanding of such caveats and their potential application it seems to be premature to start creating policies regarding their registration at this point in time.
Agree.
Geoff Huston
-- James