Re: [sig-policy] prop-104-v001: Clarifying demonstrated needs requiremen

To: Andy Linton <asjl at lpnz dot org>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-104-v001: Clarifying demonstrated needs requirement in IPv4 transfer policy
From: Shin SHIRAHATA <null at null dot nu>
Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2012 18:06:58 +0800
Cc: SIG policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <CALS-_OrcJeZR1LEitajmsFU5RnvQEykxwkSMV56DsrjT+giiow at mail dot gmail dot com>
List-archive: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailing-lists/sig-policy>
List-help: <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=help>
List-id: APNIC SIG on resource management policy <sig-policy.lists.apnic.net>
List-post: <mailto:sig-policy@lists.apnic.net>
List-subscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=subscribe>
List-unsubscribe: <http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy>, <mailto:sig-policy-request@lists.apnic.net?subject=unsubscribe>
References: <CACfPNNRnK2J=dpQaBjAeFES59NNhNi+nCuHCCYeS9Q3H8754Cw@mail.gmail.com> <CALS-_OrcJeZR1LEitajmsFU5RnvQEykxwkSMV56DsrjT+giiow@mail.gmail.com>


> 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:

I agree with your opinion. 

Actually, we had the same thought, and we confirmed with APNIC team
before the submission.

The response we received was that APNIC secretariat should follow APNIC
policy and stick to one year need at this stage. If there is a need to
change this, it should be discussed at policy-sig.

This was why we submitted the proposal but we are open to hear if there
has been any changes since we last confirmed with APNIC.

Could you follow-up if the change can be done under current policy?
> APNIC team

Regards,
Shin