Hi Geoff,firstly I do appreciate your efforts to make sure there are opportunities for engagement from the policy sig on this topic.
On 18/06/2009, at 3:24 PM, Geoff Huston wrote:
We have two suggested alternatives for the final highlight: A: 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 a period of 24 months. or B: 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.
I had another thought and this is probably a little more controversial, but may contribute to the thought process of others.
So apologies for mooting a "C".In this I sense that transparency is falling by the wayside a little. For example organisations can transfer in/out addresses blocks with only a public registry change log after the fact, and for the most cases that will be fine.
Perhaps change the constraint to a 'notice of public objection' (or some other wording) based on the idea that other members can observe if any issues are apparent, and voice feedback prior to allocation.
as some loose text:"When a member disposes of address space using this transfer policy, and requests further IPv4 allocations from APNIC within 12 months. A notice of public objection will be posted on the APNIC website for 1 month prior to any request being fulfilled."
This doesn't stop any _needed_ allocations from happening post transfer (ie not inhibiting business), and further highlights who is doing what and why so gives more transparency to the process.