Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
24 months is a LOOONG time in this industry and business in general, but so is 12 months.
What this part of the policy seems to do is punish someone irrevocably punish someone for that self-inflicted wound, and given the amount of mistakes in business I've made, seen many others make, often unintentionally, there needs to be some way to deal with that.
One of the problems I see here is that most of the people proposing, writing, arguing about these proposals (not just this one) are employees of organisations. With that, I am not sure the repercussions are understood, or empathy exists for people who do run/own/manage the company and are the people who would suffer under these kinds of things.
Rarely do we seem to have the actual owners like me arguing for the right of business owners and the things that will affect their organisations.
Restraint of Trade is probably not the correct term. Probably more monopoly and the implications of not allowing a business to function appropriately.
Essentially APNIC is a monopoly, being defined by: a monopoly exists when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control over a particular product or service to determine significantly the terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.[1] Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable substitute goods.
Given that APNIC is obviously a monopoly in the IP Addressing space market in this region, APNIC needs to be seen as fair to everyone, even those whom make genuine mistakes or bad business decisions.
Re relying on each other's honesty is a wrong thing to do in my opinion. This industry, like any other has its share of bad people, or even not so bad people who just want to save some dollars and if it isn't breaking the rules, but you can get what you need by going around them, then do so.
...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 Philip Smith
> Sent: Monday, 29 June 2009 10:08 AM
> To: Skeeve Stevens
> Cc: Policy SIG
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
>
> Hi Skeeve,
>
> 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
> --
> * 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