Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal

[<myamanis@bb.softbank.co.jp>]

Dear Geoff, Andy and all

Yes, it is acceptable.
How about you? > Seiichi

Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Geoff Huston [mailto:gih@apnic.net] 
> Sent: Friday, July 17, 2009 2:19 PM
> To: 山西　正人(ネットワーク本部); Andy Linton
> Cc: sig-policy SIG
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal
> 
> 
> On 17/07/2009, at 12:30 PM, <myamanis@bb.softbank.co.jp> wrote:
> 
> > If it is your concerns, Andy's suggestion also covers it without  
> > conflicting with confidentiality.
> 
> So Andy's suggestion was:
> 
> "I am comfortable if this isn't in the proposal because of the  
> confidentiality problem and also because I trust the APNIC and other  
> hostmasters to do the right thing if/when these applications 
> are lodged.
> 
> "I expect that statistics of the number of these applications 
> will be   
> made available (with confidentiality preserved) and that the  
> hostmaster staff would alert senior management, the EC and 
> this group  
> if major abuse appeared to be happening."
> 
> 
> So if you are happy with Andy's suggestion, then this leads me to a  
> possible text along the lines of:
> 
> "When a member disposes of address space using this transfer policy  
> the member should not be entitled to any further IPv4 address  
> allocations or assignments from APNIC under the prevailing 
> policies of  
> demonstrated need for a period of 24 months or until the "final /8  
> assignment" policies are in force.
> 
> "Under exceptional circumstances a member may submit an application  
> for further assignments or allocations earlier than this time. Any  
> such application must be endorsed by the Executive Council or its  
> delegate, and in endorsing this policy the Executive Council 
> may elect  
> to define an additional fee in processing any such applications.  
> Statistics of the number of IPv4 address allocations and assignments  
> made under this provision will be published on a regular basis."
> 
> This would allow for exceptions to be processed by senior management  
> in the secretariat under the delegated authority of the Executive  
> Council to act responsibly to prevent major abuse, and allows 
> for the  
> possibility of an additional levy to be determined by the EC, and  
> allows for any such allocations to be reported in terms of an 
> overall  
> summary of any such activity. At this same time it does not require  
> any additional disclosure, and so would preserve the intent 
> of the non- 
> disclosure provisions in the APNIC membership agreement.
> 
> Is this approach acceptable?
> 
> 
> Geoff
> 
> Disclaimer: same as last time. really. :-)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>