Re: [sig-policy] Address Transfer Policy Proposal

[Seiichi Kawamura <kawamucho@mesh.ad.jp>]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

I can agree with this.

Regards,
Seiichi

myamanis@bb.softbank.co.jp wrote:
> 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. :-)
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
> 
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)

iD8DBQFKYBf2crhTYfxyMkIRAgaCAJwPva5NpHd+OHo7XGmxwf/IYStjOACfZbcF
hMV5v8veM7GL7UdzwuYNcaU=
=8urN
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----