Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
I can agree with this.
myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp wrote:
> Dear Geoff, Andy and all
> Yes, it is acceptable.
> How about you? > Seiichi
> Masato Yamanishi
>> -----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. :-)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----