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? Geoff Disclaimer: same as last time. really. :-)