Re: [sig-policy] prop-104-v001: Clarifying demonstrated needs requiremen
Proposing policy changes really shouldn't be our first choice for
problem resolution. I see no reason why people shouldn't come to this
list with a problem statement such as the one Dean suggests:
> For example, If a user were able to justify their needs for a two year
> period, would the hostmasters support a transfer under the current
> policies.
and asking the Secretariat for an opinion. This would allow others
with similar problems/questions to take part in discussions.
As Policy SIG Chair I'd be happy to help with such requests and I
suspect the Co-Chairs would as well.
Is we can't find a satisfactory solution this way then we can move to
more formal methods.
andy
On Tue, Jul 31, 2012 at 3:05 PM, Dean Pemberton <dean at deanpemberton dot com> wrote:
> Good Afternoon,
>
> A lot of this policy looks to compare the current APNIC situation with
> that in other RIRs, I do not believe a difference in itself is a
> reason to change policy. Just because it is done differently
> elsewhere, while interesting, should not be a necessary and sufficient
> condition for policy change within this region.
>
> Therefore the justification for this policy really boils down to:
>
>> Furthermore, 12 months is also too short for transfers within the APNIC
>> region considering many xSPs plan their service and their addressing
>> requirements beyond one year.
>
> As with prop-99. I'd like to ask Sanjaya, is there a way to
> accomodate this situation under the current policies.
> For example, If a user were able to justify their needs for a two year
> period, would the hostmasters support a transfer under the current
> policies.
>
> We can then see if there appears to be a problem.
>
> Kind Regards,
> Dean
>
>
>