Re: [sig-policy] [Sig-policy][Draft announcement]prop-050: IPv4 addresst
> Izumi Okutani wrote:
>> Hi, I have two clarification question about this proposal.
>>
>> 1. Is it correct in assuming historical resouces currently under APNIC
>> is also *included* in the scope for the transfer?
>> Was a little confused by the phrase "(non-historical)"below:
>> ----
>> It proposes that APNIC will recognise and register a transfer of
>> addresses where the parties to the transfer are 'known' to APNIC and
>> that the address block being transferred is part of APNIC's current
>> (non-historical) address set
>> -----
>>
>
> As the author of the proposal I'll try to answer your queries as best I can.
>
> The proposal says that the addresses that are included in the scope of the
> transfer policy are:
>
> - The address block must be in the range of addresses administered
> by APNIC, either as part of a /8 address block assigned by the
> IANA to APNIC, or as part of a historically-assigned address
> block now administered by APNIC.
>
> - The address block must be allocated or assigned to a current
> APNIC account holder.
>
>
> The intent of the proposal was to include those historical resources
> that have been transferred to a current member account via the procedure
> of section 6 of APNIC-116
> (http://www.apnic.net/policy/historical-resource-policies.html)
>
> I agree that the sentence in the summary that you've highlighted is
> confusing, and I'm not sure what words should be used to describe this
> precisely, but the intent was that historical addresses that are
> registered against dormant or non-current members would be excluded
> from this policy, but historical addresses that are recorded in a
> current member's account are to be included in this policy.
>
Okay. I understand.
I don't have a problem about the current proposal text as it's already
clarified here.
>
>> 2. Does this proposal seek to allow inter-RIR transfers if it reaches
>> consensus in other RIRs as well?
>
>
> No, it does not at this stage. This was discussed at the last APNIC
> meeting and some possibilities were proposed along the lines of
> a reciprocal arrangement, but the proposal at this stage is
> mute on the topic of inter-RIR transfers.
>
Acknowledged.
Thank you for the clarifications.