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

To: SIG policy <sig-policy at apnic dot net>
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-104-v001: Clarifying demonstrated needs requirement in IPv4 transfer policy
From: Sanjaya <sanjaya at apnic dot net>
Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 12:00:21 +1000
Delivered-to: sig-policy at mailman dot apnic dot net
In-reply-to: <CACfPNNRnK2J=dpQaBjAeFES59NNhNi+nCuHCCYeS9Q3H8754Cw 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: <CALS-_Ooo5CFcuZQLVrdkchcsihcEAnAtgpdoG8QfVvpTgNBfQA@mail.gmail.com> <CACfPNNRnK2J=dpQaBjAeFES59NNhNi+nCuHCCYeS9Q3H8754Cw@mail.gmail.com>
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:14.0) Gecko/20120713 Thunderbird/14.0

Hi Dean and all,

Transfer is essentially re-delegation process and the IPv4 policy is

quite specific in delegation size based on 1 year need:

"Based on these factors, APNIC and NIRs will delegate address space to

meet the LIR's estimated needs for a period up to one year up to the

maximum allowed delegation under Section 3. If APNIC or the NIR make a

delegation based on a period of less than one year, then they must

inform the LIR of the length of the period and the reasons for selecting

it."

I don't see ways to accommodate prop-104 need without changing the

policy. The needs based transfer evaluation introduced by prop-096 must

have boundaries. Otherwise, as per Adam's latest post to the list,

people may come with a 15 year or 100 year planning window that would be

hard to decline.


Regards,
Sanjaya

On 31/07/2012 1:05 PM, Dean Pemberton 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