Hi,In response to the call for comments and suggestions that Philip Smith and I made earlier this week, we've received the following suggestion from Seiichi Kawamura and two colleagues from the Japanese community. In the interests of ensuring that the community's discussion of this proposal occurs in the open I am forwarding their suggestion to the list, their kind permission.
This note suggests to replace the constraint that "when a member disposes of address space using this transfer policy the member should not be entitled to any further IPv4 allocations or assigments from APNIC for an extended period (two years?)" with constraint 4.1 described below, to be effective until APNIC reaches "final /8 policy".
I have some concern myself in thinking about this suggested replacement that that the mode of behaviour of the form: 1. apply for IPv4 space, 2. dispose of it by transfer, 3. apply for Ipv4 space again, ,... would not be prevented by the proposed replacement. Do others share my concern, or am I missing something in Seiichi-san's suggestion?
In any case Philip and I would appreciate any comments from others on the proposal to incorporate this suggestion from Seiichi-san into the revised prop-50 address transfer policy proposal, or any further comments about what should or should not be included in the revised address transfer policy proposal.
thanks, GeoffDisclaimer: before I forget again, I should note that Geoff is writing this as an individual and not representing APNIC in any capacity.
Begin forwarded message:
From: Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho at mesh dot ad dot jp> Date: 1 June 2009 8:49:27 PMTo: Geoff Huston <gih at apnic dot net>, pfs at cisco dot com, myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp , n-hirai at bb.softbank dot co dot jpSubject: Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Hi Geoff, Philip A couple of people from Japan including myself, were getting together to post a proposal on safeguards for address transfers... before prop-050 got sent back from the EC.4.1 Any address that will be transfered must be held by the transfering party for at least 12 months, regardless of how the address was obtained.4.2 Until the time when the use of "final /8 policy" is put to action, the recipient of a transfer is to justify use of the transferred address. After the "final /8 policy" is put to action, no justification is needed. 4.3 While the above two rules are met, receiving new allocations will not be a privelege that is taken away. 4.1 is something that I though will make us all feel comfortable than a x-year 'allocation forbidding' period. IMHO, the AP region is very much conservative compared to ARIN or RIPE and a privelege taken away may restrict unused address holders from releasing their addresses. Can these propositions be incorporated with prop-050? Best Regards, Seiichi Kawamura