Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
On 17/07/2009, at 12:30 PM, <myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp> wrote:
If it is your concerns, Andy's suggestion also covers it without
conflicting with confidentiality.
So Andy's suggestion was:
"I am comfortable if this isn't in the proposal because of the
confidentiality problem and also because I trust the APNIC and other
hostmasters to do the right thing if/when these applications are lodged.
"I expect that statistics of the number of these applications will be
made available (with confidentiality preserved) and that the
hostmaster staff would alert senior management, the EC and this group
if major abuse appeared to be happening."
So if you are happy with Andy's suggestion, then this leads me to a
possible text along the lines of:
"When a member disposes of address space using this transfer policy
the member should not be entitled to any further IPv4 address
allocations or assignments from APNIC under the prevailing policies of
demonstrated need for a period of 24 months or until the "final /8
assignment" policies are in force.
"Under exceptional circumstances a member may submit an application
for further assignments or allocations earlier than this time. Any
such application must be endorsed by the Executive Council or its
delegate, and in endorsing this policy the Executive Council may elect
to define an additional fee in processing any such applications.
Statistics of the number of IPv4 address allocations and assignments
made under this provision will be published on a regular basis."
This would allow for exceptions to be processed by senior management
in the secretariat under the delegated authority of the Executive
Council to act responsibly to prevent major abuse, and allows for the
possibility of an additional levy to be determined by the EC, and
allows for any such allocations to be reported in terms of an overall
summary of any such activity. At this same time it does not require
any additional disclosure, and so would preserve the intent of the non-
disclosure provisions in the APNIC membership agreement.
Is this approach acceptable?
Disclaimer: same as last time. really. :-)