Dear Colleagues,
I am Satoru Tsurumaki from Japan Open Policy Forum.
I would like to share key feedback in our community for prop-118,
based on a meeting we organised on 22nd Aug to discuss these proposals.
Many supporting opinions were expressed on this proposal.
However, many comments were expressed that proposer should feedback for the discussion which we discussed in past OPM.
Below are details of opinions expressed.
- Demand for 5 years: It is difficult to clarify a demand of address needs for both APNIC and LIR.
- The policy should be looser. it will increase a possibilities of address transfer if time frame are expand from 2 years to 5 years.
- The reason why APNIC clarify the request of transfer is for tranferring from ARIN. So inter-APNIC case, it not need originally and there is no reason to make a a clarification strictly.I agree with the purpose of the proposal.
- Nevertheless, proposer should respond to the past comments.
- I'd like to request to proposer to explain the intention of copying the implementation contents of RIPE NCC as it is.
- The content of the previous discussion has not been reflected and it is not refined. Although the position of the proposal is not in an opposite position, the proponent should explain more. Please answer the discussion at APNIC 44.
Regards,
Satoru Tsurumaki