On 21/05/2009, at 21:38 , Zhang Jian wrote:
Those people like Andy and Seiichi, they only expressed some concern, they also expressed some supports in other posts, I wouldn't consider them as 'object to' the proposal .
I think that's a fair representation of my position.I don't think we should hold prop-050 back at this stage. I don't think there's anyone who thinks we shouldn't record the transfers and keep the registry database as valid and relevant as possible.
It seems to me the problem area for most people is their worry that somehow accepting prop-050 will result in a situation where a few unscrupulous people will exploit the new policy to avoid paying fees and at the same time accelerate IPv4 address depletion.
I'll repeat that I believe that the APNIC staff have policies and the wisdom to interpret those existing policies to ensure that doesn't happen to any significant degree.
Can I suggest that we agree that this proposal should go forward at this stage? I'm quite comfortable with the idea that this could take six months to implement and there's nothing to stop us recommending that.
Those who feel strongly that there should be some extra safeguards can propose them, we can discuss them and reach consensus within that period. I certainly don't object to sensible additional safeguards and I'm sure that many others will support those.
Sometimes it's just easier to divide a problem into two parts, solve one part and then tackle the other one. I think this is one of those times. Let's agree to let this go forward and that we'll deal with the second part of this issue as soon as possible.
Regards, andy