Hi Scott,
Can anyone tell me what in this policy proposal would prevent an
organization from transferring address space, turning around and
requesting more space from APNIC, transferring that space, etc. etc.?
Nothing, we are clever aren't we !
Also nothing to stop people avoiding the Initial Resource Charge.
Simply join as an associate member and get another member to transfer
some of their space to you. This will save you $3,169 by never having
to pay the initial fee and your friendly member simply requests more
space when they now run out, albeit sooner.
People can now combine up their memberships. 16 small members each
with a /20 can now transfer their resource to a new single Medium
member, reducing their costs from $50,704 (16 x $3,169) to a share of
the Medium membership ($396) plus the small costs of drafting a decent
agreement. At least in this example no resources were wasted, and
no-one is really effected, well except APNIC who's revenue drops by
~$44,000 and the Medium member if free to continue to request more
resources.
My personal favorite is all the non AP region companies who will be
lining up to transfer their resources to their (new or existing) APNIC
account, thus removing all those pesky requirements of having to
justify their existing resources.
This seems like a loophole big enough to use to corner the IPv4 address
market, and drain both the APNIC and IANA free pools in a very short
time.
Yes people were more concerned about the integrity of the registry
than the effects of this policy on the Free Pool, APNIC revenue or
creating sanctioned address hoarding.
We as a region at APNIC26 managed to pass a policy prop-066 requiring
historical allocations to be justified for future IP resource
requests, yet now we have a policy that negates that, simply transfer
all your historical space to a friendly member (or your own second
member) (and optionally back) will solve that problem, you no-longer
need to justify any of it.
Prior versions of this proposal had some safeguards to prevent that kind
of thing, but it looks like all of those were removed in this version.
For those of you not there to understand how we ended up with this
proposal, in the last 10 minutes the Chair decided that it was better
to have *any* policy rather than a policy with any form group
consideration, so we randomly removed parts of the proposal to the
point where (even the english speakers) were confused as to what the
actual policy was.
So yes we now have a policy that has significant risk to the IANA Free
Pool, APNIC revenues and the entire concept of justified allocation of
IP resources.
-Scott
--
James