Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
Good comments Seiichi-san!
...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?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Seiichi Kawamura [mailto:kawamucho at mesh dot ad dot jp]
> Sent: Thursday, 12 March 2009 12:54 PM
> To: Skeeve Stevens
> Cc: myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp; sig-policy at apnic dot net
> Subject: Re: [sig-policy] Prop 050(072) comments
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> 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-----