Re: [sig-policy] Inter-registry transfers
Hi Izumi,
On 19/02/2009, at 1:20 PM, Izumi Okutani wrote:
2. Allowing NIR-APNIC transfers
Could we suppose transfers between APNIC-NIR(at least JPNIC)
account
holders can be accomodated even if there is no consensus on
inter-RIR transfers? (i.e. prop-068)
We strongly hope it can since NIR account holders are no different
from others in the APNIC region.
I suppose that in terms of strict formalism the answer would be "no,
that would be an incorrect supposition" from the strictly limited
perspective of this policy proposal. The proposal does not have
optional components that can be adjudged by the community
independently as to general consensus in acceptance. But of course
the
policy process is one where proposals are put before the community in
an attempt to find what would gain such general acceptance, and if
proposal 68 fails and there is an identified need to address the
specific issues relating to transfers that encompasses members of
NIRs
and members of APNIC then further policy proposals would doubtless
appear that would address that specific issue independently of the
inter-RIR topic.
So transfers between APNIC and NIR account holders will not be allowed
if prop-068 gets rejected.
I can sort of understand to make inter-RIR transfers as a seperate
issue
to be discussed but...
A strong request from ISPs in Japan is that they want to be a part of
transfers within the APNIC region as they are no different from direct
APNIC LIRs/other ISPs. Please include us too! :-)
Ofcourse, we'd like to see opinions within the region so may I suggest
to make a seperate poll on transfers between APNIC-NIR account holders
from inter RIR-transfers?
(Make it a choice of NIR community if they want to join)
Yes, I completely agree with this model.
The way prop-50 is worded (and pro-68) is that it explicitly allows
NIR communities the
choice of whether they want to join or not. So if the ISPs in Japan
wish to be part of this
framework then it is a case of using the JPNIC OPM to gather consensus
support
and adopt a similar policy for transfers in the context of JPNIC,
which would then be
honored under the terms of APNIC / NIR transfers as proposed in prop-68.
Prop-50 explicitly applies to APNIC members and not to members of NIR
communities. The
reason why I drafted it in this manner was to allow such NIR
communities to decide for
themselves if this is appropriate for their circumstances or not.
Prop-68 respects the integrity of the NIR policies in this process and
proposes that
transfers of addresses between APNIC members and NIR members can occur
only of the transfer meets the respective criteria of APNIC and the NIR.
In other words the proposals 50 and 68 explicitly makes it a choice or
NIR communities here.
My hopefull guess is that even the people who don't support inter RIR
transfers may find it acceptable to have inter-registry (APNIC-NIR)
transfers within the APNIC region at least.
this may be the case, and the chairs of the Policy SIG may wish to
explore
these alternative approaches if prop-68 fails to gain general
consensus. Of
course if prop-68 receives general support then this would not be
necessary,
BTW, am I right in assuming that prop-067 doesn't make this
distiction?
(transfers between APNIC and NIR account holders are accepted if the
proposal reaches consensus)
Of course in all this flurry of hypothetical future policy proposals
there is the time element lurking behind all this, and I'm not sure
that the general economic downturn has really altered the basic
dynamics of IPv4 address consumption all that much in terms of
gaining
extra years to debate the issue (check out http://www.potaroo.net/tools/ipv4/predict.png
to see the change in predicted exhaustion dates over time), so at
some point the inevitable will occur and the IPv4 address allocation
system used today will come to a natural halt. We probably need to
find some acceptable answers to these issues this year as to what we
do afterwards. (Unless of course we crave the added excitement of
living right on the edge! :-))
yes, which is exactly why ISPs/operators in Japan wish to have
transfers
between APNIC/NIR members to be allowed as well.
(it is a tempting crave but I'll keep it as a personal sentiment)
:-)
regards,
Geoff