Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits when transferring addres
Again.... I think 072 has restraint of trade written all over it. RoT is defined as "any contractual term which seeks to restrict the freedom of a party to engage in business".
While this policy procedure is great, and comments are great... do we have any lawyers here? Or are we geeks going to put APNIC into a possible legal hole?
...Skeeve
--
Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
skeeve at eintellego dot net / www.eintellego.net
Phone: 1300 753 383, Fax: (+612) 8572 9954
Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 / skype://skeeve
--
NOC, NOC, who's there?
Disclaimer: Limits of Liability and Disclaimer: This message is for the named person's use only. It may contain sensitive and private proprietary or legally privileged information. You must not, directly or indirectly, use, disclose, distribute, print, or copy any part of this message if you are not the intended recipient. eintellego Pty Ltd and each legal entity in the Tefilah Pty Ltd group of companies reserve the right to monitor all e-mail communications through its networks. Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the message states otherwise and the sender is authorised to state them to be the views of any such entity. Any reference to costs, fee quotations, contractual transactions and variations to contract terms is subject to separate confirmation in writing signed by an authorised representative of eintellego. Whilst all efforts are made to safeguard inbound and outbound e-mails, we cannot guarantee that attachments are virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
> -----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 Terry Manderson
> Sent: Wednesday, 11 March 2009 11:26 AM
> To: sig-policy at apnic dot net SIG
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits when
> transferring address space
>
> I support this.
>
> Although the observation is 'where there is a will, there is a way'
> applies and if some entity/person wishes to open and close companies
> and APNIC accounts for the sake of brokering fresh space from APNIC
> for transfers there is nothing you can do to stop it.
>
> But in an effort to regulate the honest - I see no drama with this
> proposal.
>
> Terry
>
> On 10/03/2009, at 7:18 PM, Randy Bush wrote:
>
> > Dear SIG members
> >
> > The policy proposal 'Reapplication limits when transferring address
> > space' has been sent to the Policy SIG for review. It will be
> > presented
> > at the Policy SIG at APNIC 28 in Beijing, China, 24-28 August 2009.
> > The
> > proposal's history can be found at:
> >
> > http://www.apnic.net/policy/proposals/prop-072-v001.html
> >
> > We invite you to review and comment on the proposal on the mailing
> > list before the meeting.
> >
> > The comment period on the mailing list before an APNIC meeting is
> > an important part of the policy development process. We encourage
> > you to express your views on the proposal:
> >
> > - Do you support or oppose this proposal?
> > - Does this proposal solve a problem you are experiencing? If
> > so, tell the community about your situation.
> > - Do you see any disadvantages in this proposal?
> > - Is there anything in the proposal that is not clear?
> > - What changes could be made to this proposal to make it more
> > effective?
> >
> > Randy, Jian, and Ching-Heng
> >
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _
> >
> > prop-072: Reapplication limits when transferring address space
> >
> _______________________________________________________________________
> _
> >
> >
> > Author: Philip Smith
> > pfs at cisco dot com
> >
> > Version: 1
> >
> > Date: 10 March 2009
> >
> > 1. Introduction
> > ----------------
> >
> > This policy proposal seeks to supplement prop-050, "IPv4 address
> > transfers", by not permitting organisations who have transferred IPv4
> > address from obtaining more address space from APNIC for a period of
> > 24
> > months after the transfer.
> >
> >
> > 2. Summary of current problem
> > ------------------------------
> >
> > Prop-050, "IPv4 address transfers", as it stands at time of writing,
> > places no restriction on the organisation transferring IPv4 address
> > space to return to APNIC for additional IPv4 address space.
> >
> > This gives organisations the opportunity to transfer their IPv4
> > address
> > space to another organisation, and return to APNIC almost immediately
> > with a fully justified application for additional resources. This
> > means
> > that organisations could rapidly deplete the remaining IPv4 pool, to
> > the
> > detriment of the entire industry during the IPv4 runout period.
> >
> >
> > 3. Situation in other RIRs
> > ---------------------------
> >
> > RIPE NCC
> >
> > The transfer policy adopted by RIPE only places no limits on any
> > organisation transferring address space to a third party from
> going
> > back to the RIPE NCC for further IPv4 address space. See:
> >
> > http://www.ripe.net/ripe/policies/proposals/2007-08.html
> >
> > ARIN
> >
> > The transfer policy notes that transfers of address space between
> > organisations are only considered if the originating organisation
> > has
> > made a complete transfer of assets to the recipient (such as a
> > liquidation of the originating organisation). See:
> >
> > http://www.arin.net/policy/proposals/2007_8.html
> >
> > LACNIC
> >
> > LACNIC is currently discussing a transfer proposal:
> >
> > LAC-2009-04 Transfer of IPv4 Blocks within the LACNIC Region
> > http://www.lacnic.net/documentos/politicas/LAC-2009-04-propuesta-
> en.pdf
> >
> > AfriNIC has no transfer policy.
> >
> >
> > 4. Details of the proposal
> > ---------------------------
> >
> > It is proposed that organisations disposing of their space using the
> > transfer policy described in prop-050, "IPv4 address transfers", are
> > not
> > eligible for APNIC IPv4 assignments and/or allocations for two years.
> >
> >
> > 5. Advantages and disadvantages of the proposal
> > ------------------------------------------------
> >
> > 5.1 Advantages
> >
> > - Organisations transferring address space to third parties can
> > not
> > go back to APNIC and request additional IPv4 address space for
> a
> > period of 24 months. This prevents organisations from making
> > frequent and repeated requests to APNIC, and then transferring
> > the address space elsewhere.
> >
> > 5.2 Disadvantages
> >
> > - None.
> >
> >
> > 6. Effect on APNIC Members
> > ---------------------------
> >
> > The proposal impacts all APNIC members in that they now cannot
> receive
> > more address space from the APNIC free pool for a full 24 months
> after
> > they have made a transfer to another organisation.
> >
> >
> > 7. Effect on NIRs
> > ------------------
> >
> > The proposal has no direct impact on NIRs, but impacts members of
> NIRs
> > in the same way it impacts APNIC members.
> > * 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
>
> * 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