Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
On 16/07/2009, at 3:36 PM, Seiichi Kawamura wrote:
Just to clarify,
B: Any address that will be transfered must be held by the
party for at least 12 months, regardless of how the address was
APNIC's current policy reads,
"Based on these factors, APNIC and NIRs will allocate enough address
space to meet the
LIR's estimated needs for a period up to one year"
This is one of the reasons for the "12 months" in option B.
In simple words, address blocks are allocated to meet one year's
estimated need, so keep it for one year.
I see now how you reached that wording in the "B:" option.
The nagging question I have is how you can possibly enforce a "must"
and still try to avoid a a greyish-to-black marketplace? In real terms
my guess is that it would be a case of delayed accounting. e.g I might
acquire a large number of addresses and allocations by various means
and on-sell/trade/transfer them almost immediately, and then tell
APNIC or the NIR (should they adopt) about it in 12 months time. And
If I actually go out of business before then? I wonder if those
address blocks might be left in a very weird state. ie in use by the
people I transferred to, but due to come back to APNIC.
There's one thing that I explained at the JP community
meeting that wasn't posted to this list.
If one decided to transfer in less than one year,
APNIC(or an NIR) may record the transfer, and can
also put limitations on the members in any way that
the hostmaster feels right. This wasn't described in
the text and I appologise for this.
While I think it is nice that you recognise the intelligence of the
Hostmaster, I'm not really keen to see hostmasters apply "feels right"
limitations to organisations outside a codified framework. The
expectations of both the hostmasters and the organisations/members
need to be declared well in advance of entering the process.