Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
Skeeve Stevens said the following on 19/6/09 09:54 :
>
> I think legally that this option has restraint of trade issues.
Surely a self inflicted wound is that organisation's fault and not
someone else's?
> 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."
I don't see why someone should have any comeback due to their own stupidity.
But setting that aside for an instant, why would the EC be the place to
appeal to?
If you have a difference of opinion with the checkout counter staff at a
supermarket, do you demand that your disagreement be resolved by the
Board of Directors of the supermarket chain? Well, maybe you do, but
most folks I know tend to ask to speak to supervisors, duty managers,
store managers, etc, up the chain. I believe you'll find that APNIC has
a similar escalation process, and I don't see why this cannot work in
this instance too.
> 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
You've listed two which I'm not sure are very convincing reasons. What
about the other reasons?
- new owners - that's a different LIR, new address space, and already
handled by mergers and acquisitions, I'd say.
- we have significant business opportunities appearing all the time.
That's called strategic planning. If an organisation decides that it has
no more business opportunities, makes a long term strategic decision to
dispose of a major asset, and then cries foul and wants to blame someone
else when it suddenly decides it has made a long term strategic mistake...
I'm sure none of us want to bar organisations from getting the resources
they require to operate their networks, but we need suitable safeguards
to stop people from wantingly milking APNIC for IPv4 address space under
a transfer policy. Having a time gap between disposal and when they can
return for more resources is important to achieve this safeguard, I think.
Maybe the 24 months is the problem here?
> 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.
I expect APNIC staff would be vigilant for multiple registrations and
duplicate applications. The assessment for receiving resources these
days is fairly detailed, but then again we all rely on each other's
honesty to a certain extent too.
philip
--