|
|
Hi Masato,On 11/03/2009, at 8:54 PM, <myamanis@bb.softbank.co.jp> <myamanis@bb.softbank.co.jp > wrote:
I agree that there is no way which can completely prevent all cheating, but also I think we should decrease its possibility and discourage it as much as possible.
The devils advocate point of view is why is this cheating? in the end it is distributing IP addresses to people who need it. Is making money as a broker bad? So long as it is recorded - I don't think I care.
(but that may be the free-market capitalist in me talking)
Regarding this proposal, while there is no "guard" for above problem in current revision,my idea can at least decrease and discourage it. So, I can't understand well why you are giving it up so quickly.Or, is there any hidden disadvantage which I have not yet aware for my idea?
The reason why I don't see that this policy does harm nor should be expanded is that I think APNIC should be focusing being a registry and not the 'internet company' police.
If someone wants to go to the effort of creating companies to broker address space, let them. And if someone needs to pay a broker for IP addresses. Then I think we have an entirely different and very sad problem.
I would recommend: 1) let the lawyers do what they do when necessary as requested by the EC2) focus on the act of making IP addresses available to all (if they want to get if from a broker or not)
3) guide the rest of the world to IPv64) Let the EC worry about how APNIC membership fees and transfer fees need to be charged
T.