Re: [sig-policy] Open Request Regarding Address Transfer Policy Proposals

[Randy Bush <randy@psg.com>]

hi david,

< chair hat = on >

> I therefore believe that it is in the interests of the APNIC community
> to debate the individual sub-proposals that have been raised (rather
> than simply voting on the existing proposals as written) 

i am in complete agreement, though have not heard from jian on this.

> the SIG workshop at next week's meeting should be structured to seek
> the consensus on each of these individual points.

that is what i have been suggesting and is the agenda awaiting agreement
among the chairs.

> I believe that the relevant sub-proposals are that:
> 
> 1. Address transfers should be permitted between APNIC members
> 
> 2. Address transfers should be permitted between APNIC members and NIR members
> 	- (If meeting relevant NIR policies)
> 
> 3. Address transfers should be permitted between APNIC members and 
> members of other RIRs
> 	-(If meeting relevant other RIR policies)
> 
> 4. The minimum permissible size of a sub-transfer of an APNIC address 
> block should be EITHER a /24 OR minimum APNIC policy size
> 	- (To be decided)
> 
> 5. Address transfers should be justified to and scrutinised by APNIC
> 
> 6. Address transfers should EITHER be enabled immediately, OR only 
> enabled after particular criteria have been met
> 	- For example, once APNIC has reached its last /8
> 	- (To be decided)
> 
> 7. APNIC should maintain a public log of the allocation history of an address
> 
> 8. APNIC members transferring address blocks to others should not be 
> eligible to receive additional address blocks for at least two years.

looks good to me, though i might not nail down as much detail.  i.e. 8
could be done with a time other than two years (as well as not done,
obviously).  but those are nits.

does anybody object to this approach?

randy