Re: [sig-policy] Last Call for Comments on prop-050: IPv4 addresstransfe
Even though I'm supporting concented proposal as direct member of APNIC,
I also know that there is similar concerns in JP community as Scott and James already mentioned.
However, consensus is consensus as our chair said, so I think
> i suspect, once this is done, we are likely to see a few test
> proposals
> addressing what some see as remaining issues.
this is best and practical way in our current situation.
Rgs,
Masato Yamanishi
Softbank BB Corp.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net
> [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Randy Bush
> Sent: Saturday, March 07, 2009 4:35 PM
> To: Scott Leibrand
> Cc: sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Last Call for Comments on prop-050:
> IPv4 addresstransfers
>
> > 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.?
> > 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.
> >
> > 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.
>
> this was the consensus of the meeting in manila. consensus was not
> achieved with such 'safaguards.'
>
> i suspect, once this is done, we are likely to see a few test
> proposals
> addressing what some see as remaining issues.
>
> randy
> * sig-policy: APNIC SIG on resource management
> policy *
> _______________________________________________
> sig-policy mailing list
> sig-policy at lists dot apnic dot net
> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/sig-policy
>