Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
Yes, it is acceptable.
How about you? > Seiichi
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Huston [mailto:gih at apnic dot net]
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 2:19 PM
> To: 山西 正人(ネットワーク本部); Andy Linton
> Cc: sig-policy SIG
> Subject: 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
> 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. :-)