Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments

I support Terence’s view on this.

We need to re-look at this and get some consensus so that this policy either does not go into force, or does, with safeguards (real working ones).

...Skeeve

Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director

eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists

skeeve@eintellego.net / www.eintellego.net

Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954

Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve

NOC, NOC, who's there?

Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.

From: sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces@lists.apnic.net] On Behalf Of Terence Zhang Yinghao
Sent: Thursday, 19 March 2009 1:48 PM
To: sig-policy@apnic.net
Subject: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments

Dear All,

I've been thinking a lot about recent proposals regarding
IPv4 transfer,and want to express my reservations
concerning those transfer proposals.

First of all, I do believe the proposals have good intend,
record transfer to ensure address registration accuracy.

But I feel that introducing a transfer at present time
will cause many side effects, some backdoors and loopholes
have been discussed in the mailinglist, in addition to that,
a transfer policy implicitly recognizes a market
of tranfer and attaches a potential 'value' to IP addresses,
which may attract some businesses to apply for more IP addresses
than their actual need, there for speed up the IPv4 addresses
consumption.

I understand proposal071/072 are trying to deal with those issues,
but I think a policy proposal should has its integrity,
I also realize that proposal 050 have some safeguards in earlier
version, but dropped in order to reach a consensus, but
few days later, two new proposals are introduced to supplement
proposal 050, trying to mitigate it's risk. So I think
proposal 050 is not that mature.

More to the point, I feel that policies deal with transfer
will be easily involved with financial and even legal issues,
and to address those issues may be very complex.
So I would suggest we only have transfer policy
when it's absolutely neccessary. Right now we
still have free pool to allocate, we should encourage
getting address through regular channel and returning address
to RIR when it's no longer in use.

Terence

China Internet Network Information Center