Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
Hash: SHA1
I agree with Skeeve's concerns about the 2 year 'penalty'.
(and thanks for the clarification on Australian law!)
If prop-071 allows for justification of proper use of a
transfered address, the recipient of the address just has
a choice of going to APNIC for an allocation, or they can
go to a friendly transferer and get it from them. If
the receiving party uses the address space properly,
and the transfering party does so in good deed, I don't see
a reason for putting a limit on the transferer.
However, unlimited transfering may lead to heavy burden
for hostmasters, unclogged unknown backdoors, etc.
I do like Masato-san's idea.
I remember his idea was, a newly allocated address should not be
transfered for x months. x being 24 in his words, but 24 may be too long.
just to clarify again, I do support prop-050 and prop-071.
I do not support prop-072.
Seiichi
Skeeve Stevens wrote:
> Hey Masato,
>
> Sorry for the local references. The NZ copyright code was a law that was brought in by a very uneducated communications minister that was so badly written that there is much ambiguity of what the law actually means... so much so that it is unworkable. It uses language like "in appropriate circumstances" but then doesn't define what that is. Reference: http://www.stuff.co.nz/technology/2252415/TelstraClear-rejects-copyright-code. The example is basically where a law, or policy has been brought it by ignorance, and is extremely unworkable through bad wording.
>
> The ATO (Australian Tax Office) is the Australian version of the American IRS, or Japanese NTA. If a Tax law is unclear, they will sometimes fund you taking themselves to court so that that law can get a ruling, thrown out, or some such... because it is in their interests to have everything clear and simple. Quiet reasonable if you think about it as their just is just to enforce tax law, not make it... and if it is confusing, it makes their job harder.
>
> My point to this discussion was that bringing in a policy which has procedural and legal problems should not be taken lightly. APNIC is not an organisation that should be spending Monday on fighting legal battles, and if it had to, it would be burning members money.
>
> My view is that prop-072 is against Australian Trade Practice Act 1974, most likely Section 45 (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/tpa1974149/s45.html). Since APNIC is under Australian Law, then any disagreements would be fought here. Any APNIC policy which would seek to restrict the way a business operates should be fair and justifiable and not leave APNIC open to legal challenges. The law says that all restraints of trade are unenforceable and void, unless they are reasonable. So, unlike normal contractual terms, which are valid unless there is some reason for them not to be, restraint of trade provisions are deemed to be invalid unless it is proved that they are reasonable. APNIC would have to fight to prove this, and I believe they would lose.
>
> Please understand my position here. I don't care if prop-050 is brought in. My view is that it is being done so to try to stop some of the black market trading that is happening and to stop it getting worse as resources become more scarce and a commodity and to bring some frame work in so that APNIC can track and legitimise these transfers. This is fine, but my view is that people mostly want it in to stop transfers by making it burdensome.
>
> This is a stupid way to go about it. If you don't want them to do it, make other rules about the freeform transfer of resources, but if you bring in prop-050, then it has to have structure. Prop-071 deals with certain aspects, but does have a burden on APNIC (which is may be happy to bare). Prop-072 seeks to punish companies who sell/transfer any resources who do not possess the ability to see into the future about what might happen next week. An example is that a company might sell a /24 because it is low on cash, and someone is willing to buy it, and at present usage, they could do without it. But a short time later, a business opportunity, or network growth might happen that they require more resources again... say far in excess of that /24, and might be completely justifiable. But due to the transfer restrictions of prop-072, the company would not be able to obtain more address space from APNIC for 24 months.
>
> I agree there needs to be a disincentive here to stop people transferring then asking for more... I do not disagree and I support the intention of Prop-072, but not the manner in which it proposes to do it. The only thing I can suggest is at the moment is a financial burden. i.e. If you transferred a /24 away and then ask for a /24 then the cost to you will be 'x', if it was a /19, the cost is 'x'. Perhaps a fee of $2500 for anything under a /21, and then AU$1per IP address beyond? To remove the restriction of being able to re-apply. Clearly the EC sets fees, so that is up to them. That example though would require the company who transferred the /24 away to pay AU$2500 to get another allocation, or a company who sold a /19 to pay AU$8,192 before they could get another allocation.
>
> I am not proposing these exact figures, but more a framework to be a disincentive as opposed to something that is completely restrictive and open to legal issues, where a fee/penalty based system would not likely be. If someone has another suggestion... surely there are as we are all smart people... then we should be considering them, not prop-072.
>
>
>
> ...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 a
re virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
>
> From: myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp [mailto:myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp]
> Sent: Thursday, 12 March 2009 2:33 AM
> To: Skeeve Stevens; sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Cc: myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp
> Subject: RE: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
>
> Dear Skeeve,
>
> Unfortunatelly, I'm not living in NZ nor AU and doesn't know the NZ Copyright Act - Section 92 A
> nor the ATO issue, so I can't understand well your concerns especially in legal aspects.
> Since it is a discussion in AP region, not domestic discussion, so it is very appreciated
> and helpful for everybody who are living in other countries if you will explain more details.
>
> Rgs,
> Masato Yamanishi
> Softbank BB Corp.
>
> ________________________________
> From: sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net [mailto:sig-policy-bounces at lists dot apnic dot net] On Behalf Of Skeeve Stevens
> Sent: Wednesday, March 11, 2009 11:17 PM
> To: sig-policy at apnic dot net SIG
> Subject: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
> All,
>
> I can't help feel that prop-050, in its raw form and even with the prop-072 addition (071 is fine), are akin to the NZ Copyright Act - Section 92A. Now that it is in law, everyone is screaming "what the hell... this should have never been brought in to begin with" and now they are trying to fix it... people are withdrawing from the working groups and getting all stressed about it.
>
> I feel that is what will happen is 050/072 get into policy. And if APNIC happily introduces flawed policy, or institutionalises these backdoors, I shall have to feel obliged and recommend that people make use of them. This isn't me being a trouble maker... it will just be me demonstrating cause and effect. If people insist on bringing something like this in, I see no alternative other than to demonstrate the repercussions of the decisions - forcing them to be closed.... what else should one do?
>
> This is actually very similar to what the ATO do in Australia. If they find something ambiguous in Tax law. Sometimes they will approach you, tell you they are going to go after you... at the same time telling you that they actually agree with you, but the law isn't clear. They will then offer to fund your legal case so you can take them to court so they can get a ruling which clarifies things for them. This is far cheaper than having too many people confused.
>
> For those who don't know me... I'm not one for sitting in the shadows or being a wall flower... and I don't do so well with backchannel politics. If I see something wrong, I will shout it from the rooftops. Sorry in advance for any sensitivities I may offend - it is nothing personal.
>
> Btw... this is the comment period... what now? What is the next step after the RFC period finishes? Who decides on what?
>
> Also... I've heard a couple of mutterings about 'outsiders' being told to butt out and keep quiet... and were also some comments akin to this on the discussion day. Are there restrictions on who can participate in this discussion?
>
> ...Skeeve
>
> --
> Skeeve Stevens, CEO/Technical Director
> eintellego Pty Ltd - The Networking Specialists
> skeeve at eintellego dot net / www.eintellego.net<http://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 a
re virus-free or compatible with your systems and do not accept any liability in respect of viruses or computer problems experienced.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> * 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
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (MingW32)
iD8DBQFJuGtNcrhTYfxyMkIRAjaTAJ0QPt9RVEFfNyf3v5vP+65zGboLHACbBA3w
pPzKdOqRuxc7ICrJPoFDHrs=
=1csJ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----