Re: [sig-policy] Last Call for Comments on prop-050: IPv4 addresstransfers

[<myamanis@bb.softbank.co.jp>]

Dear Randy and all,

Even though I'm supporting concented proposal as direct member of APNIC,
I also know that there is similar concerns in JP community as Scott and James already mentioned.

However, consensus is consensus as our chair said, so I think

> i suspect, once this is done, we are likely to see a few test 
> proposals
> addressing what some see as remaining issues.

this is best and practical way in our current situation.

Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
Softbank BB Corp.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net 
> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
> Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 4:35 PM
> To: Scott Leibrand
> Cc: sig-policy@apnic.net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Last Call for Comments on prop-050: 
> IPv4 addresstransfers
> 
> > Can anyone tell me what in this policy proposal would prevent an
> > organization from transferring address space, turning around and
> > requesting more space from APNIC, transferring that space, 
> etc. etc.?
> > This seems like a loophole big enough to use to corner the IPv4
> > address market, and drain both the APNIC and IANA free 
> pools in a very
> > short time.
> > 
> > Prior versions of this proposal had some safeguards to prevent that
> > kind of thing, but it looks like all of those were removed in this
> > version.
> 
> this was the consensus of the meeting in manila.  consensus was not
> achieved with such 'safaguards.'
> 
> i suspect, once this is done, we are likely to see a few test 
> proposals
> addressing what some see as remaining issues.
> 
> randy
> *              sig-policy:  APNIC SIG on resource management 
> policy           *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy@lists.apnic.net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>