Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal

[Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>]

Hi,

In response to the call for comments and suggestions that Philip Smith  
and I made earlier this week, we've received the following suggestion  
from Seiichi Kawamura and two colleagues from the Japanese community.  
In the interests of ensuring that the community's discussion of this  
proposal occurs in the open I am forwarding their suggestion to the  
list, their kind permission.

This note suggests to replace the constraint that  "when a member  
disposes of address space using this transfer policy the member should  
not be entitled to any further IPv4 allocations or assigments from  
APNIC for an extended period (two years?)" with constraint 4.1  
described below, to be effective until APNIC reaches "final /8 policy".

I have some concern myself in thinking about this suggested  
replacement that that the mode of behaviour of the form: 1. apply for  
IPv4 space, 2. dispose of it by transfer, 3. apply for Ipv4 space  
again, ,... would not be prevented by the proposed replacement. Do  
others share my concern, or am I missing something in Seiichi-san's  
suggestion?

In any case Philip and I would appreciate any comments from others on  
the proposal to incorporate this suggestion from Seiichi-san into the  
revised prop-50 address transfer policy proposal, or any further  
comments about what should or should not be included in the revised  
address transfer policy proposal.

thanks,

     Geoff

Disclaimer: before I forget again, I should note that Geoff is writing  
this as an individual and not representing APNIC in any capacity.






Begin forwarded message:

> From: Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp>
> Date: 1 June 2009 8:49:27 PM
> To: Geoff Huston <gih@apnic.net>, pfs@cisco.com, myamanis@bb.softbank.co.jp 
> , n-hirai@bb.softbank.co.jp
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Hi Geoff, Philip
>
> A couple of people from Japan including
> myself, were getting together to post a proposal
> on safeguards for address transfers... before prop-050
> got sent back from the EC.
>
>  4.1 Any address that will be transfered must be held by the  
> transfering
>      party for at least 12 months, regardless of how the address was  
> obtained.
>
>  4.2 Until the time when the use of "final /8 policy" is
>      put to action, the recipient of a transfer is to justify use
>      of the transferred address. After the "final /8 policy"
>      is put to action, no justification is needed.
>
>  4.3 While the above two rules are met, receiving new allocations
>      will not be a privelege that is taken away.
>
> 4.1 is something that I though will make us all feel
> comfortable than a x-year 'allocation forbidding' period.
>
> IMHO, the AP region is very much conservative compared to
> ARIN or RIPE and a privelege taken away may restrict
> unused address holders from releasing their addresses.
>
> Can these propositions be incorporated with prop-050?
>
> Best Regards,
> Seiichi Kawamura