Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
Re A:
I think legally that this option has restraint of trade issues.
I appreciate the intent, but unless it has a bypass method then I see it as faulted.
My suggestion would be something like:
"..... for a period of 24 months with an appropriate appeal process". The appeal process could be something like - you pay $10k, fill out a form which the EC reviews and can approve or deny a new allocation."
Valid reasons:
- New owners of company
- Significant business opportunity which can be documented
- and many more reasons I am sure we could come up with
The issues with Option A also is that if A does become the rule, with or without an appeals process, it is easy to bypass by just setting up another company for $800 and doing the application.
Re B:
I support B... except:
Does this put the legitimate transfer of resources policy at risk? I.e. companies purchasing other companies, mergers, and so on.
I also think that none of the above will stop anyone 'leasing' address space.
If I had a /18 and 'leased' out lots of different address space to different people, then I don't see what anyone can actually do about it. It stays in my name, is actually being used, is announced and so on... then no one would be the wiser.
I also think buying/transferring address space is buying a product with a limited life span... leasing sounds to be the better option. Is there any plans or proposals to stop people acquiring a large amount of space and just farming it out? Is there indeed anything even against it? Not that I can see.
If we HAVE to have an option, I propose A with the appeals process - or nothing. It still all sounds paper tigerish here since there are very cheap methods to get around it... so kinda what is the point?
...Skeeve
--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve at eintellego dot net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
www.linkedin.com/in/skeeve ; facebook.com/eintellego
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-
> bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Geoff Huston
> Sent: Thursday, 18 June 2009 3:24 PM
> To: Policy SIG
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
>
> With this note I'd like to request a little more help from the policy
> sig folk in resolving a couple of items that will allow Philip and
> myself to revise the address transfer policy proposal in a way that
> will assist the community to reach a workable consensus on the topic.
>
> What we have now is a set of highlights that read:
>
> - The transfer proposal applies to all address holdings as held by
> current account holders of APNIC (the existing historical address
> transfer policy covers other potentially relevant scenarios of
> transfers)
>
> - NIRs have the choice as to when to adopt this policy for their
> members (i.e. members of NIRs)
>
> - Prior to the exhaustion of APNIC's IPv4 space (i.e. prior to the use
> of the "final /8" allocation measures) recipients of transfers will
> be required to justify their need for address space. After this time
> there is no requirement for any form of evaluation of requirements
> for eligibility.
>
>
> 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 transferred must be held by the transferring
> party for at least 12 months, regardless of how the address was
> obtained.
>
>
> It would be really useful to hear from some folk about whether it
> makes more
> sense in our context to impose a constraint on future allocations
> (option A)
> or a constraint on frequency on transfers for any given address
> (option B).
>
> Which option would you prefer to see in the policy proposal?
>
>
> thanks,
>
> Geoff
>
> Disclaimer: As usual, all my own work, etc, etc.
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management policy
> *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy