Re: [sig-policy] prop-072: Reapplication limits when transferringaddress
Hi Masato,
On 11/03/2009, at 8:54 PM, <myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp> <myamanis at bb.softbank dot co dot jp
> wrote:
I agree that there is no way which can completely prevent all
cheating,
but also I think we should decrease its possibility and discourage
it as much as possible.
The devils advocate point of view is why is this cheating? in the end
it is distributing IP addresses to people who need it. Is making money
as a broker bad? So long as it is recorded - I don't think I care.
(but that may be the free-market capitalist in me talking)
Regarding this proposal, while there is no "guard" for above problem
in current revision,
my idea can at least decrease and discourage it.
So, I can't understand well why you are giving it up so quickly.
Or, is there any hidden disadvantage which I have not yet aware for
my idea?
The reason why I don't see that this policy does harm nor should be
expanded is that I think APNIC should be focusing being a registry and
not the 'internet company' police.
If someone wants to go to the effort of creating companies to broker
address space, let them. And if someone needs to pay a broker for IP
addresses. Then I think we have an entirely different and very sad
problem.
I would recommend:
1) let the lawyers do what they do when necessary as requested by the EC
2) focus on the act of making IP addresses available to all (if they
want to get if from a broker or not)
3) guide the rest of the world to IPv6
4) Let the EC worry about how APNIC membership fees and transfer fees
need to be charged
T.