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

["Terence Zhang Yinghao" <zhangyinghao@cnnic.cn>]

Seiichi/Steeve, 

Although we may have different view, may be just defferent explanation , 
I think we have the same concern: 'safeguard that REALLY works',
which should be an integrated part of the proposal.

Regards

Terence

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Seiichi Kawamura" <kawamucho@msa.biglobe.ne.jp>
To: "Leo Vegoda" <leo.vegoda@icann.org>
Cc: "Terence Zhang Yinghao" <zhangyinghao@cnnic.cn>; <sig-policy@apnic.net>
Sent: Friday, March 20, 2009 1:40 AM
Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments


> Hello Terence,
> 
> While I do understand your worries, I must comment agasint
> some of your opinions. Please exucse me for my rudeness.
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> Unfortunately, the coundown of /8's is recognized by many
> and the implicit value is already rising. That's what I feel
> as a member of an NIR. I would like to know what other NIR
> members feel.
> 
> >> 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.
> 
> I think the Internet is already full of financial and legal issues
> today. Its a part of daily life in an ISP. Heck! We pay money to JPNIC
> yearly, and that's already a financial and legal issue itself!
> How about domains? Isn't it a miracle that its still working? :-)
> 
> What we need to focus on now, (let me borrow Skeeve's words here) is safeguard
> that REALLY works, or think really works. We also need to think about
> deployment of technological ways of ensuring an IP address integrity as well
> (just as Randy noted in a previous mail).
> 
> >> we should encourage
> >> getting address through regular channel and returning address
> >> to RIR when it's no longer in use.
> 
> There's still time to work on this, but
> if encouraging were to make things dramatically better,
> we woudn't be talking about prop-050 right now.
> 
> Regards,
> Seiichi