[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
On 29/06/2009, at 2:18 PM, Skeeve Stevens wrote:
EC was just a suggestion... someone else is fine as long as they are
fair, objective and able to make a call either way, and an appeals
process to someone who can over ride a bad decision (not that any
would be, but you need to have a 'what if' scenario procedure).
24 months is a LOOONG time in this industry and business in general,
but so is 12 months.
To which we'd all argue, don't sell your address space if you think
you might need it in the next 24 months.
What this part of the policy seems to do is punish someone
irrevocably punish someone for that self-inflicted wound, and given
the amount of mistakes in business I've made, seen many others make,
often unintentionally, there needs to be some way to deal with that.
I'm not sure how many people will 'unintentionally' sell their address
space. I wouldn't expect many Courier companies to sell half their
fleet because at Christmas a bunch of their trucks were sitting around
idle for the month of December.
The proposed policy text seems to be pretty clear, the proposed
effects are will be well known.
One of the problems I see here is that most of the people proposing,
writing, arguing about these proposals (not just this one) are
employees of organisations. With that, I am not sure the
repercussions are understood, or empathy exists for people who do
run/own/manage the company and are the people who would suffer under
these kinds of things.
I am a business owner, no-one will decided to dispose of a critical
resource to our company without consulting someone who'll make the
educated decision (which means research the such repercussions).
Restraint of Trade is probably not the correct term. Probably more
monopoly and the implications of not allowing a business to function
appropriately.
I'll leave the legal issues aside and focus on the policy issues.
Essentially APNIC is a monopoly, being defined by: a monopoly exists
when a specific individual or an enterprise has sufficient control
over a particular product or service to determine significantly the
terms on which other individuals shall have access to it.[1]
Monopolies are thus characterized by a lack of economic competition
for the good or service that they provide and a lack of viable
substitute goods.
Again, not a policy issue, so i won't comment.
Given that APNIC is obviously a monopoly in the IP Addressing space
market in this region, APNIC needs to be seen as fair to everyone,
even those whom make genuine mistakes or bad business decisions.
It seems pretty fair, being that 'any' member selling their address
space isn't entitled to more for X years.
It's any member, not some, or ones from a specific region, pretty fair.
I'm not sure any member organization or for-profit company protects
against people making bad business decisions, I've not heard of a
Monopoly anywhere in the world is regulated based on how they protect
against people making mistakes or bad business decisions.
My interest is that any proposed effects are well documented and
understandable, the proposed text is pretty clear.
...Skeeve
--
James
