On 29/06/2009, at 2:18 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
EC was just a suggestion... someone else is fine as long as they are fair, objective and able to make a call either way, and an appeals process to someone who can over ride a bad decision (not that any would be, but you need to have a 'what if' scenario procedure).24 months is a LOOONG time in this industry and business in general, but so is 12 months.
To which we'd all argue, don't sell your address space if you think you might need it in the next 24 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.
I'm not sure how many people will 'unintentionally' sell their address space. I wouldn't expect many Courier companies to sell half their fleet because at Christmas a bunch of their trucks were sitting around idle for the month of December.
The proposed policy text seems to be pretty clear, the proposed effects are will be well known.
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.
I am a business owner, no-one will decided to dispose of a critical resource to our company without consulting someone who'll make the educated decision (which means research the such repercussions).
Restraint of Trade is probably not the correct term. Probably more monopoly and the implications of not allowing a business to function appropriately.
I'll leave the legal issues aside and focus on the policy issues.
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. 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.
Again, not a policy issue, so i won't comment.
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.
It seems pretty fair, being that 'any' member selling their address space isn't entitled to more for X years.
It's any member, not some, or ones from a specific region, pretty fair.I'm not sure any member organization or for-profit company protects against people making bad business decisions, I've not heard of a Monopoly anywhere in the world is regulated based on how they protect against people making mistakes or bad business decisions.
My interest is that any proposed effects are well documented and understandable, the proposed text is pretty clear.